mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Replicating and Extending "Because Their Treebanks Leak": Graph Isomorphism, Covariants, and Parser Performance

arXiv 2106.00352 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2021cs.CL cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Sogaard (2020) obtained results suggesting the fraction of trees occurring in the test data isomorphic to trees in the training set accounts for a non-trivial variation in parser performance. Similar to other statistical analyses in NLP, the results were based on evaluating linear regressions. However, the study had methodological issues and was undertaken using a small sample size leading to unreliable results. We present a replication study in which we also bin sentences by length and find that only a small subset of sentences vary in performance with respect to graph isomorphism. Further, the correlation observed between parser performance and graph isomorphism in the wild disappears when controlling for covariants. However, in a controlled experiment, where covariants are kept fixed, we do observe a strong correlation. We suggest that conclusions drawn from statistical analyses like this need to be tempered and that controlled experiments can complement them by more readily teasing factors apart.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2021.

Builds on

6 of 29 references.

References · 6

  1. 2016Deep Biaffine Attention for Neural Dependency Parsingcited by 334
  2. 2019Viable Dependency Parsing as Sequence Labelingcited by 34
  3. 2020Dissecting Span Identification Tasks with Performance Predictioncited by 13
  4. 2020Efficient EUD Parsingcited by 8
  5. 2013The risks of mixing dependency lengths from sequences of different lengthcited by 7
  6. 2020Inherent Dependency Displacement Bias of Transition-Based Algorithmscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.

5 papers.