1 Introduction
Effective and highprecision pruning is essential for making statistical parsers fast and accurate. Existing pruning techniques differ in the source of parsing complexity they tackle. Beam search Collins (2003) bounds the number of entries in each cell of the parse chart; supertagging Bangalore and Joshi (1999); Clark and Curran (2007); Lewis et al. (2016)
bounds the number of lexicon entries for each input token; and coarsetofine parsing
Charniak et al. (2006) blocks chart cells that were not useful when parsing with a coarsergrained grammar.One very direct method for limiting the chart cells the parser considers is through chart constraints Roark et al. (2012): a tagger first identifies string positions at which constituents may begin or end, and the chart parser may then only fill cells which respect these constraints. Roark et al. found that begin and end chart constraints accelerated PCFG parsing by up to 8x. However, in their original form, chart constraints are limited to PCFGs and cannot be directly applied to more expressive formalisms, such as treeadjoining grammar (TAG, joshi;etal1997).
Chart constraints prune the ways in which smaller structures can be combined into bigger ones. Intuitively, they are complementary to supertagging, which constrains lexical ambiguity in lexicalized grammar formalisms such as TAG and CCG, and has been shown to drastically improve efficiency and accuracy for these Bangalore et al. (2009); Lewis et al. (2016); Kasai et al. (2017). For CCG specifically, zhang10:_chart_prunin_fast_lexic_gramm_parsin showed that supertagging combines favorably with chart constraints. To our knowledge, similar results for other grammar formalisms are not available.
In this paper, we make two contributions. First, we generalize chart constraints to more expressive grammar formalisms by casting them in terms of allowable parse items that should be considered by the parser. The Roark chart constraints are the special case for PCFGs and CKY; our view applies to any grammar formalism for which a parser can be specified in terms of parsing schemata. Second, we present a neural tagger which predicts begin and end constraints with an accuracy around 98%. We show that these chart constraints speed up a PCFG parser by 18x and a TAG chart parser by 4x. Furthermore, chart constraints can be combined effectively with coarsetofine parsing for PCFGs (for an overall speedup of 70x) and supertagging for TAG (overall speedup of 124x), all while improving the accuracy over those of the baseline parsers. Our code is part of the Alto parser Gontrum et al. (2017), available at http://bitbucket.org/tclup/alto.
2 Generalized chart constraints
Roark et al. define begin and end chart constraints. A begin constraint for the string w is a set of positions in w at which no constituent of width two or more may start. Conversely, an end constraint describes where constituents may not end.
Roark et al. focus on speeding up the standard CKY parser for PCFGs with chart constraints. They do this by declaring a cell of the CKY parse chart as closed if or , and modifying the CKY algorithm such that no nonterminals may be entered into closed cells. They show this to be very effective for PCFG parsing; but in its reliance on CKY chart cells, their algorithm is not directly applicable to other parsing algorithms or grammar formalisms.
2.1 Allowable items
In this paper, we take a more general perspective on chart constraints, which we express in terms of parsing schemata Shieber et al. (1995). A parsing schema consists of a set of items, which are derived from initial items by applying inference rules. Once all derivable items have been calculated, we can calculate the best parse tree by following the derivations of the goal items backwards.
Many parsing algorithms can be expressed in terms of parsing schemata. For instance, the CKY algorithm for CFGs uses items of the form to express that the substring from to can be derived from the nonterminal , and derives new items out of old ones using the inference rule
The purpose of a chart constraint is to describe a set of allowable items . We restrict the parsing algorithm so that the consequent item of an inference rule may only be derived if it is allowable. If all items that are required for the best derivation are allowable, the parser remains complete, but may become faster because fewer items are derived.
For the specific case of the CKY algorithm for PCFGs, we can simulate the behavior of Roark et al.’s algorithm by defining an item as allowable if and .
2.2 Chart constraints and binarization
One technical challenge regarding chart constraints arises in the context of binarization. Chart constraints are trained to identify constituent boundaries in the original treebank, where nodes may have more than two children. However, an efficient chart parser for PCFG can combine only two adjacent constituents in each step. Thus, if the original tree used the rule
, the parser needs to first combine with , say into the substring , and then the result with (or vice versa). This intermediate parsing item for must be allowable, even if , because it does not represent a real constituent; it is only a computation step on the way towards one.We solve this problem by keeping track in the parse items whether they were an intermediate result caused by binarization, or a complete constituent. This generalizes Roark et al.’s cells that are “closed to complete constituents”. For instance, when converting a PCFG grammar to Chomsky normal form, one can distinguish the “new” nonterminals generated by the CNF conversion from those that were already present in the original grammar. We can then let an item be allowable if and either or is new.
2.3 Allowable items for TAG parsing
By interpreting chart constraints in terms of allowable parse items, we can apply them to a wide range of grammar formalisms beyond PCFGs. We illustrate this by defining allowable parse items for TAG. Parse items for TAG Shieber et al. (1995); Kallmeyer (2010) are of the form , where are string positions, and are either both string positions or both are . is a complex representation of a position in an elementary tree, which we do not go into here; see the literature for details. The item describes a derivation of the string from position to . If and are , then the derivation starts with an initial tree and covers the entire substring. Otherwise, it starts with an auxiliary tree, and there is a gap in its string yield from to . Such an item will later be adjoined at a node which covers the substring from to using the following inference rule (see Fig. 1b):
Assuming begin and end constraints as above, we define allowable TAG items as follows. First, an item is not allowable if or . Second, if and are not , then the item is not allowable if or (else there will be no constituent from to at which the item could be adjoined). Otherwise, the item is allowable.
2.4 Allowable states for IRTG parsing
Allowable items have a particularly direct interpretation when parsing with Interpreted Regular Tree Grammars (IRTGs, KollerK11), a grammar formalism which generalizes PCFG, TAG, and many others. Chart parsers for IRTG describe substructures of the input object as states of a finite tree automaton . When we encode a PCFG as an IRTG, these states are of the form ; when we encode a TAG grammar, they are of the form . Thus chart constraints describe allowable states of this automaton, and we can prune the chart simply by restricting to rules that use only allowable states.
In the experiments below, we use the Alto IRTG parser Gontrum et al. (2017), modified to implement chart constraints as allowable states. We convert the PCFG and TAG grammars into IRTG grammars and use the parsing algorithms of GroschwitzKJ16: “condensed intersection” for PCFG parsing and the “siblingfinder” algorithm for TAG. Both of these implement the CKY algorithm and compute charts which correspond to the parsing schemata sketched above.
3 Neural chartconstraint tagging
Roark et al. predict the begin and end constraints for a string w using a loglinear model with manually designed features. We replace this with a neural tagger (Fig. 1a), which reads the input sentence token by token and jointly predicts for each string position whether it is in and/or .
Technically, our tagger is a twolayer bidirectional LSTM Kiperwasser and Goldberg (2016); Lewis et al. (2016); Kummerfeld and Klein (2017). In each time step, it reads as input a pair
of onehot encodings of a word
and a POS tag, and embeds them into dense vectors (using pretrained GloVe word embeddings
Pennington et al. (2014) for and learned POS tag embeddings for). It then computes the probability that a constituent begins (ends) at position
from the concatenation of the hidden states and of the second forward and backward LSTM at position :We let ; that is, the network predicts a begin constraint if the probability of exceeds a threshold (analogously for ). The threshold allows us to trade off precision against recall; this is important because false positives can prevent the parser from discovering the best tree.
acc  prec  recall  acc  prec  recall  

0.5  97.6  97.4  97.8  98.1  98.7  98.7 
0.9  96.7  98.8  95.2  97.2  99.4  96.7 
0.99  93.7  99.6  87.9  93.0  99.7  90.5 
4 Evaluation
We evaluated the efficacy of chartconstraint pruning for PCFG and TAG parsing. All runtimes are on an AMD Opteron 6380 CPU at 2.5 GHz, using Oracle Java version 8. See the Supplementary Materials for details on the setup.
4.1 PCFG parsing
We trained the chartconstraint tagger on WSJ Sections 02–21. The tagging accuracy on WSJ Section 23 is shown in Fig. 2. As expected, an increasing threshold
increases precision and decreases recall. Precision and recall are comparable to Roark et al.’s loglinear model for
. Our tagger achieves 94% recall for at a precision of 99%, compared to Roark et al.’s recall of just over 80% – without the feature engineering effort required by their system.^{1}^{1}1Note that the numbers are not directly comparable because Roark et al. evaluate their tagger on Section 24.We extracted a PCFG grammar from a rightbinarized version of WSJ Sections 02–21 using maximum likelihood estimation, applying a horizontal markovization of 2 and using POS tags as terminal symbols to avoid sparse data issues. We parsed Section 23 using a baseline parser which does not prune the chart, obtaining a low fscore of 71, which is typical for such a simple PCFG. We also parsed Section 23 with parsers which utilize the chart constraints predicted by the tagger (on the original sentences and gold POS tags) and the gold chart constraints from Section 23. The results are shown in Fig.
3; “time” is the mean time to compute the chart for each sentence, in milliseconds.Chart constraints by themselves speed the parser up by factor of 18x at ; higher values of did not increase the parsing accuracy further, but yielded smaller speedups. This compares to an 8x speedup in Roark et al.; the difference may be due to the higher recall of our neural tagger. Furthermore, when we combine chart constraints with the coarsetofine parser of irtgctf17, using their threshold of for CTF pruning, the two pruning methods amplify each other, yielding an overall speedup of up to 70x.^{2}^{2}2Our CTF numbers differ slightly from Teichmann et al.’s because they only parse sentences with up to 40 words and use a different binarization method.
Parser  fscore  time  speedup  % gold 

Unpruned  71.0  2599  1.0x  4.4 
CC ()  75.0  143  18.2x  91.8 
CC (gold)  77.6  143  18.2x  100.0 
CTF  67.6  194  13.4x  20.1 
CTF + CC (  72.4  37  70.1x  94.3 
CTF + CC (gold)  75.3  38  68.4x  100.0 
4.2 TAG parsing
For the TAG experiments, we converted WSJ Sections 02–21 into a TAG corpus using the method of chen04:_autom_tags_penn_treeb. This method sometimes adjoins multiple auxiliary trees to the same node. We removed all but the last adjunction at each node to make the derivations compatible with standard TAG, shortening the sentences by about 40% on average. To combat sparse data, we replaced all numbers by NUMBER and all words that do not have a GloVe embedding by UNK.
The neural chartconstraint tagger, trained on the shortened corpus, achieves a recall of 93% for and 98% for at 99% precision on the (shortened) Section 00. We chose a value of for the experiments, since in the case of TAG parsing, false positive chart constraints frequently prevent the parser from finding any parse at all, and thus lower values of strongly degrade the fscores.
We read a PTAG grammar Resnik (1992) with 4731 unlexicalized elementary trees off of the training corpus, binarized it, and used it to parse Section 00. This grammar struggles with unseen words, and thus achieves a rather low fscore (see Fig. 4). Chart constraints by themselves speed the TAG parser up by 3.8x, almost matching the performance of gold chart constraints. This improvement is remarkable in that irtgctf17 found that coarsetofine parsing, which also prunes the substrings a finergrained parser considers, did not improve TAG parsing performance.
Parser  fscore  time  speedup  % gold  
binarized 
Unpruned  51.4  9483  1.0x  5.3 
CC ()  53.6  2489  3.8x  76.7  
CC (gold)  53.9  2281  4.2x  100.0  
supertag ()  77.5  137  69.4x  29.7  
unbinarized 
supertag ()  78.5  132  72.0x  30.2 
… + CC (0.95)  78.4  76  124.3x  91.6  
… + CC (0.99)  79.2  80  119.2x  86.1  
… + CC (gold)  78.3  74  127.9x  100.0  
26[1pt/2pt]  … + B/E (0.95)  79.2  87  108.9x  74.5 
… + B/E (0.8)  78.4  84  113.3x  76.9  
supertag ()  79.4  1768  5.4x  1.5  
… + CC (0.95)  80.6  265  35.8x  71.3  
… + CC (0.99)  81.0  288  33.0x  60.3  
… + CC (gold)  81.9  252  37.6x  100.0  
26[1pt/2pt]  … + B/E (0.95)  81.1  397  23.9x  35.6 
… + B/E (0.8)  80.7  386  24.6x  38.6 
Supertagging.
We then investigated the combination of chart constraints with a neural supertagger along the lines of lewis16:_lstm_ccg_parsin. We modified the output layer of Fig. 1a such that it predicts the supertag (= unlexicalized elementary tree) for each token. Each input token is represented by a 200D GloVe embedding.
To parse a sentence w of length , we ran the trained supertagger on w and extracted the top supertags for each token of w. We then ran the Alto PTAG parser on an artificial string “1 2 …” and a sentencespecific TAG grammar which contains, for each , the top elementary trees for , lexicalized with the “word” and weighted with the probability of its supertag. This allowed us to use the unmodified Alto parser, while avoiding the possible mixing of supertags for multiple occurrences of the same word. We then obtained the best parse trees for the original sentence w by replacing each artificial token in the parse tree by the original token .
The sentencespecific grammars are so small that we can parse the test corpus without binarizing them. As Fig. 4 indicates, supertagging speeds up the parser by 5x () to 70x (); the use of word embeddings boosts the coverage to almost 100% and the fscore to around 80. Adding chart constraints on top of supertagging further improves the parser, yielding the best speed (at ) and accuracy (at ). We achieve an overall speedup of two orders of magnitude with a drastic increase in accuracy.
Allowable items for TAG.
Instead of requiring that a TAG chart item is only allowable if neither the string nor its gap violate a chart constraint (as in Section 2.3), one could instead adopt a simpler definition by which a TAG chart item is allowable if and satisfy the chart constraints, regardless of the gap.^{3}^{3}3We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this comparison.
We evaluated the original definition from Section 2.3 (“CC”) against this baseline definition (“B/E”). As the results in Fig. 4 indicate, the B/E strategy achieves higher accuracy and lower parsing speeds than the CC strategy at equal values of . This is to be expected, because CC has more opportunities to prune chart items early, but false positive chart constraints can cause it to overprune. When is scaled so both strategies achieve the same accuracy – i.e., B/E for CC , or CC for B/E –, CC is faster than B/E. This suggests that imposing chart constraints on the gap is beneficial and illustrates the flexibility and power of the “admissible items” approach we introduce here.
4.3 Discussion
The effect of using chart constraints is that the parser considers fewer substructures of the input object – potentially to the point that the asymptotic parsing complexity is reduced below that of the underlying grammar formalism Roark et al. (2012). In practice, we observe that the percentage of chart items whose begin positions and end positions are consistent with the gold standard tree (“% gold” in the figures) is increased by CTF and supertagging, indicating that these suppress the computation of many spans that are not needed for the best tree. However, chart constraints prune useless spans out much more directly and completely, leading to a further boost in parsing speed.
Because we remove multiple adjunctions in the TAG experiment, most sentences in the corpus are shorter than in the original. This might skew the parsing results in favor of pruning techniques that work best on short sentences. We checked this by plotting sentence lengths against mean parsing times for a number of pruning methods in Fig.
5 (supertagging with , chart constraints with ). As the sentence length increases, parsing times of supertagging together with chart constraints grows much more slowly than the other methods. Thus we can expect the relative speedup to increase for corpora of longer sentences.5 Conclusion
Chart constraints, computed by a neural tagger, robustly accelerate parsers both for PCFGs and for more expressive formalisms such as TAG. Even highly effective pruning techniques such as CTF and supertagging can be further improved through chart constraints, indicating that they target different sources of complexity.
By interpreting chart constraints in terms of allowable chart items, we can apply them to arbitrary chart parsers, including ones for grammar formalisms that describe objects other than strings, e.g. graphs Chiang et al. (2013); Groschwitz et al. (2015). The primary challenge here is to develop a highprecision tagger that identifies allowable subgraphs, which requires moving beyond LSTMs.
An intriguing question is to what extent chart constraints can speed up parsing algorithms that do not use charts. It is known that chart constraints can speed up contextfree shiftreduce parsers Chen et al. (2017). It would be interesting to see how a neural parser, such as Dyer et al. (2016), would benefit from chart constraints calculated by a neural tagger.
Acknowledgments.
We are grateful to Jonas Groschwitz, Christoph Teichmann, Stefan Thater, and the anonymous reviewers for discussions and comments. This work was supported through the DFG grant KO 2916/21.
Appendix A Training details
Both neural networks were implemented using Tensorflow 1.1.0.
a.1 Chart constraints
The network has two hidden layers consisting of Tensorflow LSTM cells with 100 units each. Weights are initialized by sampling from a uniform probability distribution with values between
and . No dropout is applied between layers.As input, the network uses 100dimensional pretrained word embeddings and a onehot encoding for POS tags. Word embeddings for unknown words (UNK) and numbers (NUMBER) were initialized using a random normal distribution with a standard deviation of 0.5. Input sentences are processed onebyone, i.e. no batching is performed.
We used the RMSProp optimizer for training, with a starting learning rate of
. The learning rate was decreased by 10% after each training epoch. The training process was stopped after 6 epochs, when accuracy on the development set stopped increasing. On an AMD Opteron 6380 processor with a clock rate of 2.5 GHz, the training process took about 4 hours in total. Tagging the entire test set takes about 10 seconds.
a.2 Supertagging
The network has two hidden layers consisting of Tensorflow LSTM cells. The first layer consists of 200 units, the second layer of 100 units. Weights are initialized by sampling from a uniform probability distribution with values between and . A dropout of 50% is applied between layers during training.
As input, the network uses 200dimensional pretrained word embeddings. Word embeddings for unknown words (UNK) and numbers (NUMBER) were initialized using a random normal distribution with a standard deviation of 0.5. The network does not use POS tags as input. Input sentences are processed onebyone, i.e. no batching is performed.
We used the Adam optimizer for training, with a starting learning rate of . The learning rate was decreased by 10% after each training epoch. The training process was stopped after 6 epochs, when accuracy on the development set stopped increasing. On an AMD Opteron 6380 processor with a clock rate of 2.5 GHz, the training process took about 11 hours in total. Tagging the entire test set takes about 10 seconds.
References
 Bangalore et al. (2009) Srinivas Bangalore, Pierre Boulllier, Alexis Nasr, Owen Rambow, and Benoît Sagot. 2009. MICA: A probabilistic dependency parser based on tree insertion grammars application note. In Proceedings of NAACLHLT (Short Papers).
 Bangalore and Joshi (1999) Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind K. Joshi. 1999. Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing. Computataional Linguistics 25(2):237–265.
 Charniak et al. (2006) Eugene Charniak, Mark Johnson, Micha Elsner, Joseph Austerweil, David Ellis, Isaac Haxton, Catherine Hill, R. Shrivaths, Jeremy Moore, Michael Pozar, and Theresa Vu. 2006. Multilevel coarsetofine PCFG parsing. In Proceedings of NAACLHLT.
 Chen and VijayShanker (2004) John Chen and K. VijayShanker. 2004. Automatic extraction of TAGs from the Penn Treebank. In New developments in parsing technology, Springer, pages 73–89.
 Chen et al. (2017) Wenliang Chen, Muhua Zhu, Min Zhang, Yue Zhang, and Jingbo Zhu. 2017. Improving shiftreduce phrasestructure parsing with constituent boundary information. Computational Intelligence 33(3):428–447.
 Chiang et al. (2013) David Chiang, Jacob Andreas, Daniel Bauer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Bevan Jones, and Kevin Knight. 2013. Parsing graphs with hyperedge replacement grammars. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
 Clark and Curran (2007) Stephen Clark and James R. Curran. 2007. Widecoverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and loglinear models. Computational Linguistics 33(4):493–552.
 Collins (2003) Michael Collins. 2003. Headdriven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics 29(4):589–637.
 Dyer et al. (2016) Chris Dyer, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Miguel Ballesteros, and Noah A. Smith. 2016. Recurrent neural network grammars. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. pages 199–209.
 Gontrum et al. (2017) Johannes Gontrum, Jonas Groschwitz, Alexander Koller, and Christoph Teichmann. 2017. Alto: Rapid prototyping for parsing and translation. In Proceedings of the EACL Demo Session. Valencia.
 Groschwitz et al. (2016) Jonas Groschwitz, Alexander Koller, and Mark Johnson. 2016. Efficient techniques for parsing with tree automata. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Groschwitz et al. (2015)
Jonas Groschwitz, Alexander Koller, and Christoph Teichmann. 2015.
Graph parsing with sgraph grammars.
In
Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing
.  Joshi and Schabes (1997) Aravind K. Joshi and Yves Schabes. 1997. TreeAdjoining Grammars. In G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, SpringerVerlag, volume 3.
 Kallmeyer (2010) Laura Kallmeyer. 2010. Parsing Beyond ContextFree Grammars. Springer.
 Kasai et al. (2017) Jungo Kasai, Bob Frank, Tom McCoy, Owen Rambow, and Alexis Nasr. 2017. TAG parsing with neural networks and vector representations of supertags. In Proceedings of EMNLP.
 Kiperwasser and Goldberg (2016) Eliyahu Kiperwasser and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Simple and accurate dependency parsing using bidirectional LSTM feature representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4:313–327.
 Koller and Kuhlmann (2011) Alexander Koller and Marco Kuhlmann. 2011. A generalized view on parsing and translation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies.
 Kummerfeld and Klein (2017) Jonathan K. Kummerfeld and Dan Klein. 2017. Parsing with traces: An algorithm and a structural representation. Transactions of the ACL 5:441–454.
 Lewis et al. (2016) Mike Lewis, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2016. LSTM CCG parsing. In Proceedings of NAACLHLT 2016.
 Pennington et al. (2014) Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of EMNLP.
 Resnik (1992) Phil Resnik. 1992. Probabilistic treeadjoining grammar as a framework for statistical natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 14th COLING.
 Roark et al. (2012) Brian Roark, Kristy Hollingshead, and Nathan Bodenstab. 2012. Finitestate chart constraints for reduced complexity contextfree parsing pipelines. Computational Linguistics 38(4):719–753.

Shieber et al. (1995)
Stuart Shieber, Yves Schabes, and Fernando Pereira. 1995.
Principles and implementation of deductive parsing.
Journal of Logic Programming
24(1–2):3–36.  Teichmann et al. (2017) Christoph Teichmann, Alexander Koller, and Jonas Groschwitz. 2017. Coarsetofine parsing for expressive grammar formalisms. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Parsing Technologies (IWPT). Pisa.
 Zhang et al. (2010) Yue Zhang, ByungGyu Ahn, Stephen Clark, Curt Van Wyk, James R. Curran, and Laura Rimell. 2010. Chart pruning for fast lexicalisedgrammar parsing. In Proceedings of COLING.
Comments
There are no comments yet.