Graph Parsing (State of the Art)
Background and Motivation
Graphs exceeding the formal complexity of rooted trees are of growing relevance to much NLP research. We interpret the term graph parsing broadly as mapping from surface strings to graph-structured target representations, which typically provide some level of syntactico-semantic analysis. Although formally well-understood in graph theory, there is substantial variation in the types of linguistic graphs, as well as in the interpretation of various structural properties. To provide a common terminology and transparent statistics across different collections of graphs in NLP, we propose to establish a ‘catalogue’ of graph banks and associated parsing results.
We anticipate a bit of a cottage industry in linguistic graph banks and graph processing tasks over the next few years, which may make it difficult to keep track of contentful similarities and differences across frameworks and approaches. This page is intended to stimulate community work towards an up-to-date resource combining the following components: (a) formal definitions of (relevant) structural graph properties; (b) in-depth descriptions of how these apply to different graph banks; (c) constantly growing surveys of graph bank statistics; and (d) a continuously evolving record of state-of-the-art processing results. Of these, components (a) and (b) are provided by Kuhlmann & Oepen (2016; in press), while (c) and (d) are maintained below.
This page was initiated by Marco Kuhlmann and Stephan Oepen, and for the time being (mid-May 2016) is very much a work in progress. We intend to have a first complete draft available for community review by early June 2016.
Software: Graph Analysis Toolkit
AMR: Abstract Meaning Representation
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) eschews explicit syntactic derivations and consideration of the syntax–semantics interface; it rather seeks to directly annotate “whole-sentence logical meanings” (Banarescu et al. 2013[1]). Node labels in AMR name abstract concepts, which in large parts draw on the ontology of OntoNotes predicate senses and corresponding semantic roles. Nodes are not overtly related to surface lexical units, and thus are unordered. Although AMR has its roots in semantic networks and earlier knowledge representation approaches (Langkilde and Knight 1998[2]), larger-scale manual AMR annotation is a recent development only. We sample two variants of AMR, viz. (a) the graphs as annotated in AMRBank 1.0 (LDC2014T12), and (b) a normalized version that we call AMR−1, where so-called “inverse roles” (like ARG0-of) are reversed. Such inverted edges are frequently used in AMR in order to render the graph as a single rooted structure, where the root is interpreted as the top-level focus. (The graph bank is natively constructed and released with inverted edges, but for parser evaluation the AMR−1 normalization is typically assumed; our conversion builds on the code of Cai and Knight (2013)[3].) In Section 3 below, we map this interpretation to our concept of top nodes for both AMR and AMR−1. Flanigan et al. (2014)<ref="flanigan2014"></ref> published the first parser targeting AMR, and the state of the art has been repeatedly updated since.
| Property | AMR | AMR−1 |
|---|---|---|
| number of graphs | 10309 | 10309 |
| average number of tokens | 20.62 | 20.62 |
| average number of nodes per token | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| number of edge labels | 135 | 100 |
| percentage of graphs that are trees | 52.48 | 18.60 |
| percentage of graphs with treewidth one | 52.72 | 52.72 |
| average treewidth | 1.524 | 1.524 |
| maximal treewidth | 4 | 4 |
| average edge density | 1.065 | 1.065 |
| percentage of nodes that are reentrant | 5.23 | 18.95 |
| percentage of graphs that are cyclic | 3.15 | 0.71 |
| percentage of graphs that are not connected | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| percentage of graphs that are multi-rooted | 0.00 | 77.50 |
| percentage of non-top roots | 47.78 | 19.39 |
CCD: Combinatory Categorial Grammar Dependencies
Hockenmaier and Steedman (2007)[4] construct CCGbank from a combination of careful interpretation of the syntactic annotations in the PTB with additional, manually curated lexical and constructional knowledge. In CCGbank (LDC2005T13), the strings of the venerable PTB Wall Street Journal (WSJ) corpus are annotated with pairs of (a) CCG syntactic derivations and (b) sets of semantic bi-lexical dependency triples, which we term CCD. The latter “include most semantically relevant non-anaphoric local and long-range dependencies” and are suggested by the CCGbank creators as a proxy for predicate–argument structure. While CCD has mainly been used for contrastive parser evaluation (Clark and Curran [2007][5], Fowler and Penn [2010][6]; inter alios), there is current work that views each set of triples as a directed graph and parses directly into these target representations (Du, Sun, and Wan 2015<ref="du2015">Du, Yantao, Weiwei Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2015. A data-driven, factorization parser for CCG dependency structures. In Proceedings of the 53rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and of the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, page 1545–1555, Bejing, China.</ref>).
| Property | CCD |
|---|---|
| number of graphs | 39604 |
| average number of tokens | 23.47 |
| average number of nodes per token | 0.88 |
| number of edge labels | 6 |
| percentage of graphs that are trees | 1.45 |
| percentage of graphs with treewidth one | 29.27 |
| average treewidth | 1.742 |
| maximal treewidth | 5 |
| average edge density | 1.070 |
| percentage of nodes that are reentrant | 28.09 |
| percentage of graphs that are cyclic | 1.28 |
| percentage of graphs that are not connected | 12.53 |
| percentage of graphs that are multi-rooted | 99.67 |
| percentage of non-top roots | 47.78 |
| average edge length | 2.582 |
| percentage of graphs that are noncrossing | 48.23 |
| percentage of graphs with pagenumber at most two | 98.64 |
EDS: Elementary Dependency Structures
SDP: Semantic Dependency Parsing
- ↑ Banarescu, Laura, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffitt, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract Meaning Representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, page 178–186, Sofia, Bulgaria, August.
- ↑ angkilde, Irene and Kevin Knight. 1998. Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 36th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 704–710, Montréal, Canada.
- ↑ Cai, Shu and Kevin Knight. 2013. Smatch. An evaluation metric for semantic feature structures. In Proceedings of the 51th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 748–752, Sofia, Bulgaria, August.
- ↑ Hockenmaier, Julia and Mark Steedman. 2007. CCGbank. A corpus of CCG derivations and dependency structures extracted from the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 33:355–396.
- ↑ Clark, Stephen and James R. Curran. 2007. Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and log-linear models. Computational Linguistics, 33(4):493–552.
- ↑ Fowler, Timothy A. D. and Gerald Penn. 2010. Accurate context-free parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page 335 – 344, Uppsala, Sweden.