MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing
By Joakim Nivre, Johan Hall, Jens Nilsson, Atanas Chanev, Gülşen Eryiğit, Sandra Kübler, Svetoslav Marinov, Erwin Marsi. 2007
915 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/206348bcd5f13c341ea8d120754f328bb55c93f7
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Yoav Goldberg
- Noah A. Smith
- Percy Liang
- Mohit Bansal
- Yonatan Belinkov
- Luke S. Zettlemoyer
- Christopher D. Manning
- Graham Neubig
Citations in the corpus
- Transforming Dependency Structures to Logical Forms for Semantic Parsing (2016, background): “In recent years, there have been significant advances in developing fast and accurate dependency parsers for many languages (McDonald et al., 2005; Nivre et al., 2007; Martins et al., 2013, inter alia ).”
- Greedy, Joint Syntactic-Semantic Parsing with Stack LSTMs (2016, methodology): “As a preprocessing step, pseudo-projectivization of the syntactic trees (Nivre et al., 2007) was used, which allowed an accurate conversion of even the non-projective syntactic trees into syntactic transitions.”
- Modeling Newswire Events using Neural Networks for Anomaly Detection (2014, methodology): “We perform (Nivre et al., 2007) on the sentences in the training data used in the first phase of training to obtain the head words of the semantic arguments.”
- IndoLEM and IndoBERT: A Benchmark Dataset and Pre-trained Language Model for Indonesian NLP (2020, methodology): “(2017) conducted a comparative evaluation over models trained using off-the-shelf tools such as MaltParser (Nivre et al., 2005) on 2,098 annotated sentences from the news domain.”
- A Neural Probabilistic Structured-Prediction Method for Transition-Based Natural Language Processing (2017, unknown): “1 (Nivre et al., 2007) Section 4 (Zhang and Nivre, 2011)”
- That’s So Annoying!!!: A Lexical and Frame-Semantic Embedding Based Data Augmentation Approach to Automatic Categorization of Annoying Behaviors using #petpeeve Tweets (2015, methodology): “• Dependency Triples: to better understand the deeper syntactic dependencies of keywords in tweets, we have also extracted typed dependency triples (e.g., nsubj(hate,I)) using the MaltParser (Nivre et al., 2007).”
- meProp: Sparsified Back Propagation for Accelerated Deep Learning with Reduced Overfitting (2017, methodology): “For the transition-based dependency parsing task, existing approaches typically can achieve the UAS score from 91.4 to 91.5 (Zhang & Clark, 2008; Nivre et al., 2007; Huang & Sagae, 2010).”
- Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS (2012, methodology): “, 2007) and MaltParser (Nivre et al., 2007) and pre-trained models for various languages.”
- The CoNLL 2008 Shared Task on Joint Parsing of Syntactic and Semantic Dependencies (2008, background): “…to the systems participating in the open challenge: named-entity labels as in the CoNLL-2003 Shared Task (Tjong Kim San and De Meulder, 2003) and from the BBN Wall Street Journal Entity Corpus, 2 WordNet supersense tags, and the output of an off-the-shelf dependency parser (Nivre et al., 2007b).”
- The CoNLL 2007 Shared Task on Dependency Parsing (2007, methodology): “The parser of McDonald and Pereira (2006) had been applied to English, Czech and Danish, and the parser of Nivre et al. (2007) to ten different languages.”
- The Effect of Syntactic Representation on Semantic Role Labeling (2008, unknown): “MaltParser is an incremental greedy classifier-based parser based on SVMs, while the LTH parser and MSTParser use exact edge-factored search with a linear model trained using online margin-based structure learning.”
- TectoMT: Modular NLP Framework (2010, unknown): “1 [4].”
- A Natural Proof System for Natural Language (2017, unknown): “The transformation procedure starts from the initial dependency 5McDonald et al. (2005); Nivre et al. (2007); Martins et al. (2013); Manning et al. (2014) inter alia.”
- Discriminative Improvements to Distributional Sentence Similarity (2013, methodology): “We consider two distributional feature sets: FEAT 1 , which includes unigrams; and FEAT 2 , which also includes bigrams and unlabeled dependency pairs obtained from MaltParser (Nivre et al., 2007).”