Hierarchical Bracketing Encodings Work for Dependency Graphs

Ana Ezquerro; Carlos G\'omez-Rodr\'iguez; David Vilares

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Hierarchical Bracketing Encodings Work for Dependency Graphs

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that hierarchical bracketing encodings—compact, k-free graph linearizations—can be learned by a neural tagger and yield the best average exact-match accuracy among compared parsers on a 22-treebank dependency graph be

desk verdict First real graph test of hierarchical bracketing encodings; the empirical claim is solid but the 0.19-point average exact-match edge needs multi-seed support. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09388 v1 pith:DRVGD2HI submitted 2025-09-11 cs.CL

Ana Ezquerro , Carlos Gómez-Rodríguez , David Vilares This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords hierarchicalbracketingencodingdependencygraphparsingsequencelabelingropecoverexactmatchsemanticenhanceddependencieslinear-time

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that hierarchical bracketing encodings, previously defined only theoretically for graphs, can be put to work in practice for dependency graph parsing. These encodings represent a graph as a sequence of labels, so parsing becomes linear-time tagging, while still covering reentrancies, cycles, and empty nodes. On a multilingual, multi-formalism benchmark, the encoding achieves the best average exact-match score among all compared sequence-labeling and graph-based parsers, and it always reaches 100% coverage of the graphs. The authors argue that the gain comes from a more balanced and compact label distribution, which they show correlates strongly with exact-match performance.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the proper rope cover: a unique, minimal subset of arcs on which all other arcs 'lean' (share a boundary). Each structural arc in the rope cover is encoded with balanced superbrackets, while auxiliary arcs are encoded with single brackets on their non-leant positions. When structural sets cross, subindices are added to brackets so the decoder can skip the correct number of structural arcs. A postprocessing step attaches unmatched closing brackets to the dummy root and discards unclosed superbrackets, ensuring a well-formed graph from any tagger output.

What would settle it

Construct a dependency graph whose proper rope cover requires a crossing index larger than any present in the 22 treebanks, run the encode–decode cycle, and check whether the original graph is recovered exactly. Alternatively, train the same tagger on a corpus with unusually high crossing density and see whether HB's coverage drops below 100% or its exact match falls behind the fixed-k encodings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that hierarchical bracketing encodings, which use a rope-cover decomposition to compress graph structure into a sequence of bracket symbols, can be effectively learned and applied to dependency graph parsing. In experiments across 22 treebanks, this encoding (HB) outperforms other approaches, including a biaffine graph parser, in exact match accuracy (HB: 38.50 average, vs. 38.31 for the best 6k-bit encoding and 37.69 for biaffine), while maintaining 100% coverage on every dataset. The encoding removes the need for a hyperparameter k that limits other bracketing schemes, reduces the label space substantially, and produces a more balanced label distribution that c

Load-bearing premise

The losslessness of the encoding for arbitrary dependency graphs is inherited as a theorem from prior theoretical work, but the paper verifies it only indirectly through 100% coverage on the evaluated treebanks, leaving worst-case graphs with very large crossing-index requirements unchecked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The hyperparameter k, which bounded the coverage of previous bracketing encodings, is eliminated; HB achieves 100% coverage on all 22 treebanks, while fixed-k encodings fall below 100% on several.
The label space is substantially reduced (average 379 labels vs. 465 for the best fixed-k encoding), with fewer unseen labels, which likely aids learning.
Sequence labeling with HB achieves the best average exact-match accuracy (38.50) across the benchmark, ahead of the biaffine parser (37.69) and the best 6k-bit encoding (38.31).
A balanced label distribution, measured by the p0.5 statistic, shows a strong linear correlation (88.1%, p<0.001) with exact-match performance across encodings, suggesting that compactness directly contributes to parsing quality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because HB handles reentrancies, cycles, and empty nodes, it should transfer to other graph-structured NLP tasks such as abstract meaning representation parsing or coreference resolution, where exact-match evaluation is also standard and crossing arcs are common.
The encoding is unbounded: the label set can, in theory, grow with the maximum crossing-index requirement. A stress test on synthetic graphs with many same-direction crossing arcs would reveal whether this theoretical limitation ever becomes a practical liability.
The reported correlation between label balance and exact match is correlational; an ablation that deliberately inflates label imbalance (e.g., by reordering arcs into less balanced structural sets) could test whether balance is causal or simply a proxy for other encoding properties.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a solid, honest empirical paper that does exactly what it says—takes the hierarchical bracketing scheme from the authors' 2025 paper and gives it its first real test on dependency graphs. The experimental setup is clean: 22 treebanks, public data, released code, per-treebank tables, and a biaffine baseline run under the same conditions. The main result—best average exact match, with 100% coverage and a compact label set—is real but the margin is thin and the paper hasn't yet shown it's stable.

What's new: the 2025 paper proved the encoding's theoretical properties but only tested it on trees. This is the first graph-domain validation, and the coverage/label-space numbers are genuinely useful. The 100% coverage result compared to the k-plane encodings dropping below 100% on several treebanks is the strongest concrete advantage. The label balance analysis (p0.5) is a nice explanatory addition, even if it's observational.

Soft spots, in order of how much they matter:

1. The headline 'best average LM' rests on single runs. The 0.19-point gap over B64 is exactly the size of seed noise for this tagger family. No error bars, no multi-seed means, no significance test. This is a load-bearing issue for the strongest claim, but it's fixable: run 3-5 seeds on a subset or all treebanks and report the spread. Until then, the honest conclusion is 'competitive, with a small average edge that could be noise.'

2. The Limitations section says HB requires fewer labels than B63 and B64, but Table 4 shows HB (379) actually has slightly more than B63 (376). Minor but should be caught.

3. The postprocessing step is described for HB but the paper never says explicitly that B2/B3/B6 also get the same correction. It matters because it affects the comparison fairness; likely they do, but state it.

4. The correlation in Figure 2 is post hoc, pooled across treebanks, and excludes the bracketing encodings because of distribution differences. It's presented as explanatory, not causal, which is fine, but the 'strong dependency' phrasing overreaches.

Nothing here breaks the core result. The theoretical guarantee of losslessness is inherited from prior work and not in question. The paper is clearly written and the appendix is a model of transparency.

Who should read it: anyone working on parsing-as-tagging, or on graph linearizations. It's a credible incremental advance, not a breakthrough, but a useful one. I'd send it to peer review—a referee will want to insist on the multi-seed check, but the work itself deserves the round.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper operationalizes hierarchical bracketing encodings (HB), previously defined theoretically in Ezquerro et al. (2025), for dependency graph parsing as sequence labeling. HB encodes arbitrary graphs—including reentrancies, cycles, and empty nodes—into n labels using superbrackets with skip indices, removing the k-plane hyperparameter required by earlier bracketing encodings. The authors evaluate HB on SemEval 2015 and IWPT 2021 enhanced-dependency treebanks, comparing against bracketing encodings B2/B3, bounded 6k-bit encodings B63/B64, and a biaffine baseline. They report that HB always achieves 100% coverage, uses a smaller label set (average 379 labels vs. 465 for B64), obtains the best average labeled exact match (LM 38.50 vs. 38.31 for B64), and is competitive in labeled F1. They also report a strong correlation between label distribution balance (p0.5) and LM across encodings.

Significance. If robust, the paper would be a useful empirical contribution: it shows that a k-free, compact graph linearization can match or beat bounded encodings and a graph-based parser on exact match while guaranteeing full coverage. The paper ships code, uses external benchmarks, and provides a clear label-space analysis. The theoretical losslessness guarantee is inherited from a peer-reviewed prior paper, and the 100% coverage on all 22 treebanks is consistently documented in the appendix. The main weakness is that the headline empirical claim—'best average exact match'—rests on single-run differences with no error bars or significance testing; the 0.19-point margin over B64 is the same order as typical seed variance for this tagger family. The theoretical construction itself is not the main risk.

major comments (2)

[§5, Table 1] The central claim that HB obtains the best exact-match score on average (HB 38.50 vs. B64 38.31) and outperforms other approaches in 7 treebanks is supported only by single training/evaluation runs. No error bars, multi-seed means, or paired significance tests are reported in Table 1 or in Appendix Tables 5–21. A 0.19-point average gap is within the range of seed-level variance for this architecture, so the 'best average' conclusion is not yet supported. Please provide multi-seed results with variance and a paired test (or otherwise state the number of seeds and show that the margin is reproducible). If multi-seed evaluation is infeasible, the abstract and conclusion should be softened to 'numerically highest' or 'competitive' rather than 'best.'
[§3, Postprocessing] The postprocessing step—matching unmatched closing brackets with w0 and discarding unclosed superbrackets—is described for HB, but the paper does not state whether the same correction is applied to the B2/B3/B6x baselines. Since these baselines also produce potentially invalid sequences, a head-to-head exact-match comparison requires identical decoding/correction rules. Please clarify in §4 or §5 whether all compared encodings use the same postprocessing; if not, the comparison may conflate encoding quality with decoder repair.

minor comments (5)

[§5, Figure 2] The phrase 'linear correlation of 88.1%' should be reported as a Pearson r (r = 0.881) with the number of points and the test type. Also, the points from different treebanks and encodings are not independent; a mixed-effects or per-treebank analysis would be more appropriate for the claimed correlation.
[Table 4] The header says 'number of generated labels in the training set and number of unseen labels in the development and evaluation sets.' It would be clearer to specify whether the second count is the union of unseen labels across dev and test or the maximum of the two.
[Footnote 3] The definition of the leaning relation is placed in a footnote. Since it is essential for understanding the encoding, consider moving it to the main text or providing an intuitive example.
[Figure 1] The bracket glyphs in the figure are dense and difficult to read, especially in print. A more schematic version with distinct colors and a legend for the superbracket pairs would help.
[§2, Footnote 2] 'Theoretical coverage' is defined as the ratio of graphs in a reference treebank for which lossless encoding/decoding is possible. This is a useful notion, but the term is not used consistently later; consider defining 'coverage' operationally in the experiments section as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the empirical evaluation is benchmark-grounded and no predicted quantity reduces to an input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: the hierarchical bracketing encoding (HB) achieves competitive exact-match accuracy across 22 treebanks. The encoding itself is explicitly taken from prior work (Ezquerro et al. 2025; Yli-Jyrä 2019), not derived here; the paper does not claim a new first-principles derivation whose conclusion equals its premise. Evaluation uses external benchmarks (SemEval 2015, IWPT 2021), an external biaffine baseline, and several encoding baselines run under the same neural tagger. No parameter is fitted to the target metric: the p0.5-to-LM correlation is a post-hoc analysis, not a fitted predictor, and the 0.19-point average LM advantage of HB over B64 is a measured outcome. The 100% coverage reported for HB follows from the defined postprocessing (unmatched closing brackets attached to w0, unclosed superbrackets discarded), so coverage is a property of the decoding scheme rather than a learned result; however, the paper never equates coverage with exact-match score, and the LM score is still measured on the resulting graphs. The losslessness guarantee for arbitrary graphs is inherited from the self-cited 2025 paper and from Yli-Jyrä 2019, but that theorem is not the load-bearing evidence for the empirical comparison; the paper does not purport to prove that theorem here, and the reported coverage on the treebanks is an independent check. The main limitations are methodological (single runs, no significance tests, and unspecified uniform application of postprocessing to baselines), which concern robustness and experimental transparency, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim does not rest on fitted parameters. The encoding pipeline inherits two theorems from cited prior work: rope-cover existence and uniqueness from Yli-Jyrä 2019, and lossless and optimal hierarchical coding from the self-cited Ezquerro et al. 2025. Training hyperparameters are hand-chosen but held constant across all compared encodings, so they cannot selectively favor HB. The only analytic quantity, p0.5, is computed from label frequencies, not fitted.

free parameters (2)

Tagger hyperparameters (learning rate 1e-5, 100 epochs, 500-token batches, dropout 0.1, LeakyReLU slope 0.1)
Hand-chosen in Appendix A.2 and identical for all compared encodings, so they cannot selectively support the HB claim.
Baseline plane count k in {2,3,4}
This is the hyperparameter of the compared baselines, the thing HB removes; values follow prior work by the same group.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Every digraph admits a unique proper rope cover, and every non-structural arc leans on a structural arc (Yli-Jyrä 2019).
Invoked in Section 3 as the basis of the structural-set decomposition; a theorem from cited prior work that this paper does not prove.
domain assumption The hierarchical bracketing coding is lossless through the encoding-decoding cycle and optimal in the number of structural arcs (Ezquerro et al. 2025).
Self-cited theorem with overlapping authors; the current paper operationalizes it for graphs but does not re-derive it.
domain assumption A two-layer FFN tagger over XLM-R or XLNet embeddings is an adequate model class for learning the encoding.
Architecture reproduced from Ezquerro et al. 2024 (Section 4); its adequacy is shown empirically by the reported tag accuracies.
domain assumption The five annotation formalisms (DM, PAS, PSD, enhanced UD) and the SDP toolkit provide comparable, reliable gold annotations.
Standard benchmark choices from SemEval 2015 and IWPT 2021, described in Section 4.

invented entities (1)

Indexed superbracket decoding device (bracket symbol plus skip index for crossing arcs) independent evidence
purpose: Resolves auxiliary arcs that would otherwise match the wrong structural superbracket at decoding time (Section 3, Figure 1b).
Not a physical postulate; a fully specified algorithmic construct with shipped code and 100% coverage on benchmark graphs. The index mechanism is verifiable against the benchmark data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Bracketing Encodings Work for Dependency Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRVGD2HI

@misc{pith2026250909388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Bracketing Encodings Work for Dependency Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRVGD2HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09388}
}

abstract

We revisit hierarchical bracketing encodings from a practical perspective in the context of dependency graph parsing. The approach encodes graphs as sequences, enabling linear-time parsing with $n$ tagging actions, and still representing reentrancies, cycles, and empty nodes. Compared to existing graph linearizations, this representation substantially reduces the label space while preserving structural information. We evaluate it on a multilingual and multi-formalism benchmark, showing competitive results and consistent improvements over other methods in exact match accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09388 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Analysis of the correlation between the encoding performance and the label distribution. Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Afra Amini and Ryan Cotterell. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.607 On parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8884--8900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.607 2022
[2]

Afra Amini, Tianyu Liu, and Ryan Cotterell. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.124 Hexatagging: Projective dependency parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1453--1464, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.124 2023
[3]

Gosse Bouma, Djam \'e Seddah, and Daniel Zeman. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.iwpt-1.15 From Raw Text to Enhanced Universal Dependencies: The Parsing Shared Task at IWPT 2021 . In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Parsing Technologies and the IWPT 2021 Shared Task on Parsing into Enhanced Universal Dependencies (IWPT 2021), page...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.iwpt-1.15 2021
[4]

Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzm \'a n, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp...

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 2020
[5]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019
[6]

Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-2077 Simpler but More Accurate Semantic Dependency Parsing . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 484--490, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/p18-2077 2018
[7]

Ana Ezquerro, David Vilares, and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.659 Dependency Graph Parsing as Sequence Labeling . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11804--11828, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.659 2024
[8]

Ana Ezquerro, David Vilares, Anssi Yli-Jyr \"a , and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.903 Hierarchical bracketing encodings for dependency parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 18436--18450, Vienna, Austri...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.903 2025

Show all 27 references

[9]

Daniel Fern \'a ndez-Gonz \'a lez and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.629 Transition-based Semantic Dependency Parsing with Pointer Networks . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis...

2020 doi
[10]

Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez, Diego Roca, and David Vilares. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.393 4 and 7-bit labeling for projective and non-projective dependency trees . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process...

2023 doi
[11]

Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez and David Vilares. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1162 Constituent Parsing as Sequence Labeling . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1314--1324, Brussels, Belgium. Association f...

2018 doi
[12]

Jan Haji c , Eva Haji c ov \'a , Jarmila Panevov \'a , Petr Sgall, Ond r ej Bojar, Silvie Cinkov \'a , Eva Fu c \'i kov \'a , Marie Mikulov \'a , Petr Pajas, Jan Popelka, Ji r \'i Semeck \'y , Jana S indlerov \'a , Jan S t e p \'a nek, Josef Toman, Zde n ka Ure s ov \'a , and ...

2012
[13]

Angelina Ivanova, Stephan Oepen, Lilja vrelid, and Dan Flickinger. 2012. https://aclanthology.org/W12-3602/ Who Did What to Whom? A Contrastive Study of Syntacto-Semantic Dependencies . In Proceedings of the Sixth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 2--11, Jeju, Republic of ...

2012
[14]

Nikita Kitaev and Dan Klein. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.557 Tetra-Tagging: Word-Synchronous Parsing with Linear-Time Inference . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6255--6261, Online. Associati...

2020 doi
[15]

Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101 Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization . Preprint, arXiv:1711.05101

2019 arXiv
[16]

Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1101 End-to-end Sequence Labeling via Bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF . In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1064--1074, Berlin, G...

2016 doi
[17]

Yusuke Miyao, Takashi Ninomiya, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2005. Corpus-Oriented Grammar Development for Acquiring a Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar from the Penn Treebank . In Natural Language Processing -- IJCNLP 2004, pages 684--693, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

2005
[18]

Stephan Oepen, Marco Kuhlmann, Yusuke Miyao, Daniel Zeman, Silvie Cinkov \'a , Dan Flickinger, Jan Haji c , and Zde n ka Ure s ov \'a . 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-2153 SemEval 2015 Task 18: Broad-Coverage Semantic Dependency Parsing . In Proceedings of the 9th Inter...

2015 doi
[19]

Michalina Strzyz, David Vilares, and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1077 Viable Dependency Parsing as Sequence Labeling . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

2019 doi
[20]

Valenzuela-Esc \'a rcega, and Mihai Surdeanu

Robert Vacareanu, George Caique Gouveia Barbosa, Marco A. Valenzuela-Esc \'a rcega, and Mihai Surdeanu. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.643/ Parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5225--5231, Marseille,...

2020
[21]

David Vilares and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.221 Discontinuous Constituent Parsing as Sequence Labeling . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2771--2785,...

2020 doi
[22]

Xinyu Wang, Jingxian Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1454 Second-Order Semantic Dependency Parsing with End-to-End Neural Networks . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4609--4618, Florenc...

2019 doi
[23]

Bing Xu, Naiyan Wang, Tianqi Chen, and Mu Li. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00853 Empirical Evaluation of Rectified Activations in Convolutional Network . Preprint, arXiv:1505.00853

2015 arXiv
[24]

Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/file/dc6a7e655d7e5840e66733e9ee67cc69-Paper.pdf XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding . In...

2019
[25]

Anssi Yli-Jyr \"a . 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-3115 Transition-Based Coding and Formal Language Theory for Ordered Digraphs . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Finite-State Methods and Natural Language Processing, pages 118--131, Dresden, German...

2019 doi
[26]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...
[27]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Afra Amini and Ryan Cotterell. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.607 On parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8884--8900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.607 2022

[2] [2]

Afra Amini, Tianyu Liu, and Ryan Cotterell. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.124 Hexatagging: Projective dependency parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1453--1464, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.124 2023

[3] [3]

Gosse Bouma, Djam \'e Seddah, and Daniel Zeman. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.iwpt-1.15 From Raw Text to Enhanced Universal Dependencies: The Parsing Shared Task at IWPT 2021 . In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Parsing Technologies and the IWPT 2021 Shared Task on Parsing into Enhanced Universal Dependencies (IWPT 2021), page...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.iwpt-1.15 2021

[4] [4]

Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzm \'a n, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp...

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 2020

[5] [5]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

[6] [6]

Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-2077 Simpler but More Accurate Semantic Dependency Parsing . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 484--490, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/p18-2077 2018

[7] [7]

Ana Ezquerro, David Vilares, and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.659 Dependency Graph Parsing as Sequence Labeling . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11804--11828, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.659 2024

[8] [8]

Ana Ezquerro, David Vilares, Anssi Yli-Jyr \"a , and Carlos G \'o mez-Rodr \'i guez. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.903 Hierarchical bracketing encodings for dependency parsing as tagging . In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 18436--18450, Vienna, Austri...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.903 2025