Fast Exact Inference with a Factored Model for Natural Language Parsing

By Daniel Klein, Christopher D. Manning. Neural Information Processing Systems, 2002

921 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f17c1ebdfe95f9cf4e2e36dca1dcf55ddd5fd45c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Automatic Cost Estimation for Tree Edit Distance Using Particle Swarm Optimization (2009, methodology): “Each pair in the datasets converted to two syntactic dependency trees using Stanford statistical parser 4 , developed in the Stanford university NLP group by (Klein and Manning, 2003).”
Exploiting Syntactic Features in a Parsed Tree to Improve End-to-End TTS (2019, methodology): “In recent years, research on parsing technologies has been greatly advanced and many new parsing algorithms are available , like Probabilistic Context Free Grammar (PCFG) [14], factored parser [15], Shift-Reduce Parser [16] and Straight to the Tree [17].”
Structure-Aware Review Mining and Summarization (2010, background): “For example, the corresponding dependency tree (Klein and Manning, 2003) for the sentence, “I really like this long movie”, is shown in Figure 3.”
Phrase Dependency Parsing for Opinion Mining (2009, methodology): “Stanford parser (Klein and Manning, 2002) and Sundance (Riloff and Phillips, 2004) are used as lexical dependency parser and shallow parser.”
Parser Evaluation over Local and Non-Local Deep Dependencies in a Large Corpus (2011, background): “MSTParser (McDonald et al., 2005) is a data-driven dependency parser.”
Cross-Language Document Summarization Based on Machine Translation Quality Prediction (2010, methodology): “We use the Stanford Lexicalized Parser (Klein and Manning, 2002) with the provided English PCFG model to parse a sentence into a parse tree.”
Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing (2010, methodology): “Stanford parser (Klein & Manning 2003).”
Tilde’s Machine Translation Systems for WMT 2017 (2018, methodology): “• Finally, data for the constrained systems are factored using an averaged perceptron-based morpho-syntactic tagger (Nikiforovs, 2014) for Estonian and the lexicalized probabilistic parser (Klein et al., 2002)”
Problems in Current Text Simplification Research: New Data Can Help (2015, methodology): “To extract theses patterns we parsed our corpus with the Stanford Parser (Klein and Manning, 2002) and applied its built-in head word identiﬁer from Collins (2003).”
Incorporating Coreference Resolution into Word Sense Disambiguation (2011, methodology): “Because they used Stanford dependency parser [14, 15] to parse the text into dependency graphs, and Stanford parser can only work on separate sentences properly.”
WHYPER: Towards Automating Risk Assessment of Mobile Applications (2013, methodology): “However, we implemented our parser as a function of Stanford-typed dependencies [22,24,25,30].”
Driving Semantic Parsing from the World’s Response (2010, methodology): “Second-order decision features Φ2 Determining how to compose two logical symbols relies on syntactic information, in our model we use the dependency tree (Klein and Manning, 2003) of the input sentence.”
A Monolingual Tree-based Translation Model for Sentence Simplification (2010, methodology): “Parser package (Klein and Manning, 2003), and lemmatization with the TreeTagger (Schmid, 1994).”