All Roads Lead to UD: Converting Stanford and Penn Parses to English Universal Dependencies with Multilayer Annotations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We describe and evaluate different approaches to the conversion of gold standard corpus data from Stanford Typed Dependencies (SD) and Penn-style constituent trees to the latest English Universal Dependencies representation (UD 2.2). Our results indicate that pure SD to UD conversion is highly accurate across multiple genres, resulting in around 1.5% errors, but can be improved further to fewer than 0.5% errors given access to annotations beyond the pure syntax tree, such as entity types and coreference resolution, which are necessary for correct generation of several UD relations. We show that constituent-based conversion using CoreNLP (with automatic NER) performs substantially worse in all genres, including when using gold constituent trees, primarily due to underspecification of phrasal grammatical functions.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2023GENTLE: A Genre-Diverse Multilayer Challenge Set for English NLP and Linguistic Evaluationcited by 17
- 2024eRST: A Signaled Graph Theory of Discourse Relations and Organizationcited by 13
- 2022A Second Wave of UD Hebrew Treebanking and Cross-Domain Parsingcited by 10
- 2021Mischievous Nominal Constructions in Universal Dependenciescited by 7
- 2024Hybrid Human-LLM Corpus Construction and LLM Evaluation for Rare Linguistic Phenomenacited by 5
- 2023Are UD Treebanks Getting More Consistent? A Report Card for English UDcited by 4
- 2021Cross-linguistically Consistent Semantic and Syntactic Annotation of Child-directed Speechcited by 3
- 2021Minor changes make a difference: a case study on the consistency of UD-based dependency parserscited by 2
- 2026Syntax as a Rosetta Stone: Universal Dependencies for In-Context Coptic Translationcited by 1
- 2026Syntax as a Rosetta Stone: Universal Dependencies for In-Context Coptic Translation20 Apr 2026
- 2024eRST: A Signaled Graph Theory of Discourse Relations and Organization20 Mar 2024
- 2024Hybrid Human-LLM Corpus Construction and LLM Evaluation for Rare Linguistic Phenomena11 Mar 2024
- 2023GENTLE: A Genre-Diverse Multilayer Challenge Set for English NLP and Linguistic Evaluation3 Jun 2023
- 2023Are UD Treebanks Getting More Consistent? A Report Card for English UD1 Feb 2023
- 2022A Second Wave of UD Hebrew Treebanking and Cross-Domain Parsing14 Oct 2022
- 2021Minor changes make a difference: a case study on the consistency of UD-based dependency parsers30 Nov 2021
- 2021Cross-linguistically Consistent Semantic and Syntactic Annotation of Child-directed Speech22 Sep 2021
- 2021Mischievous Nominal Constructions in Universal Dependencies29 Aug 2021