mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Recursive Subtree Composition in LSTM-Based Dependency Parsing

arXiv 1902.09781 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2019cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The need for tree structure modelling on top of sequence modelling is an open issue in neural dependency parsing. We investigate the impact of adding a tree layer on top of a sequential model by recursively composing subtree representations (composition) in a transition-based parser that uses features extracted by a BiLSTM. Composition seems superfluous with such a model, suggesting that BiLSTMs capture information about subtrees. We perform model ablations to tease out the conditions under which composition helps. When ablating the backward LSTM, performance drops and composition does not recover much of the gap. When ablating the forward LSTM, performance drops less dramatically and composition recovers a substantial part of the gap, indicating that a forward LSTM and composition capture similar information. We take the backward LSTM to be related to lookahead features and the forward LSTM to the rich history-based features both crucial for transition-based parsers. To capture history-based information, composition is better than a forward LSTM on its own, but it is even better to have a forward LSTM as part of a BiLSTM. We correlate results with language properties, showing that the improved lookahead of a backward LSTM is especially important for head-final languages.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4.

4 papers.