Comparison of Various Approaches for Dependency Parsing

2019

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1109/opcs.2019.8880244
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This paper presents the comparison results of dependency parsing for two distinct languages: Kazakh and English, by using a various discrete and distributed feature-based approaches We apply graph/transition-based methods to train these models and to report the typed and untyped accuracy. Different comparisons are made for comparing these models by utilizing discrete or dense features. Experimental results show that discrete feature-based approaches (graph-based) perform well than others when the size of data-set is relatively small. For a large data set, the results of those approaches are very competitive with each other, and no significant difference in performance can be observed. In terms of training speed, the results show that discrete feature-based parsers take much less training time than the neural network-based parser, but with comparable performances.