PreprintCited by 464Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Grammar as a Foreign Language

Open access

Abstract

Syntactic constituency parsing is a fundamental problem in natural language processing and has been the subject of intensive research and engineering for decades. As a result, the most accurate parsers are domain specific, complex, and inefficient. In this paper we show that the domain agnostic attention-enhanced sequence-to-sequence model achieves state-of-the-art results on the most widely used syntactic constituency parsing dataset, when trained on a large synthetic corpus that was annotated using existing parsers. It also matches the performance of standard parsers when trained only on a small human-annotated dataset, which shows that this model is highly data-efficient, in contrast to sequence-to-sequence models without the attention mechanism. Our parser is also fast, processing over a hundred sentences per second with an unoptimized CPU implementation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1412.7449

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [2][2] Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 , 2014. - · arXiv
  2. [4][4] S´ ebastien Jean, Kyunghyun Cho, Roland Memisevic, and Yoshua Bengio. On using very large target vocabulary for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.2007 , 2014. - · arXiv
  3. [24][24] Ronan Collobert. Deep learning for efficient discriminative parsing. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , 2011. -
  4. [31][31] Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4555 , 2014. - · arXiv
  5. [32][32] Zoubin Ghahramani. A neural network for learning how to parse tree adjoining grammar. B.S.Eng Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 464

Metadata

Authors
Vinyals, O., Kaiser, L., Koo, T., Petrov, S., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2014
Volume
28
Pages
2773-2781
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1869752048
Cited by
464
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 29
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • neural information processing systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
synthetic training data, data efficiency, natural language parsing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review