Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / authors / Joakim Nivre

Joakim Nivre

19 paper cards in Mova's library · 2003–2022

Joakim Nivre wrote 19 of the papers Mova reads, in 2003–2022, most of them on Dependency parsing, Treebanks, Universal Dependencies; often with Christopher D. Manning, Filip Ginter, Daniel Zeman.

OpenAlex · h-index 60 · 16290 citations · 335 works — openalex, 2026-10-18

The profile is the library's match of the name; two people with one name are not always told apart.

Elsewhere: Google Scholar · Semantic Scholar · dblp · ACL Anthology · ORCID

Topics: Dependency parsing 8 · Treebanks 6 · Universal Dependencies 5 · Semantic role labeling 2 · Part-of-speech tagging 1 · Machine translation 1

Ideas Mova took (2)

From the ideas ledger: an idea tried, kept or queued, or measured with no gain, and what it gave.

Papers

  1. Nucleus Composition in Transition-based Dependency Parsing (2022)
    Following Tesnière, the paper takes the syntactic nucleus, a unit that can be one word or several (for example an auxiliary with its verb, or a case marker with its noun), as the elementary unit of parsing.
  2. Universal Dependencies (2021)
    This article sets out the linguistic theory behind Universal Dependencies (UD), which is at once a cross-linguistically consistent morphosyntactic annotation scheme, an open research community and a growing collection of treebanks.
  3. Universal Dependencies v2: An Evergrowing Multilingual Treebank Collection (2020)
    The paper describes the UD v2 guidelines and the state of the collection at release 2.5: 157 treebanks in 90 languages, built by more than 300 contributors.
  4. CoNLL 2018 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies (2018)
    This overview describes the second CoNLL shared task on parsing raw text into UD. Systems start from raw text, with no gold segmentation or tags, and are scored on 82 test treebanks, with macro-averaged LAS and two new metrics, MLAS (labels plus morphological features) and BLEX (lemmas plus labels). Eight new…
  5. Enhancing Universal Dependency Treebanks: A Case Study (2018)
    Only five of the 102 UD 2.1 treebanks have enhanced dependencies, so the authors test whether enhanced graphs can be added to other treebanks automatically.
  6. Sentences with Gapping: Parsing and Reconstructing Elided Predicates (2018)
    In "Paul likes coffee and Mary tea" the verb is elided, so standard parsers attach the remnants badly and downstream relation extraction misses the predicate.
  7. CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies (2017)
    The shared task asks systems to parse raw text, with no gold tokenization, sentence splitting or tags, into UD trees for 49 languages.
  8. Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection (2016)
    The paper is the reference for the first UD release. It sets out the design principles: dependency-based and lexicalist annotation, the recoverability principle (every syntactic word must map back to the raw text), content words as the backbone of the tree with function words as dependents, and a closed inventory of…
  9. Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology (2014)
    The paper reconstructs the typology behind Stanford Dependencies and proposes a two-layer taxonomy: 42 universal grammatical relations that are broadly attested across languages, with language-specific subtypes added under them.
  10. Normalisation of Historical Text Using Context-Sensitive Weighted Levenshtein Distance and Compound Splitting (2013)
    The paper normalizes historical Swedish spelling to modern forms by comparing each historical token with a modern dictionary.
  11. Evaluating Dependency Parsing: Robust and Heuristics-Free Cross-Annotation Evaluation (2011)
    Attachment scores compare parsers only within one treebank scheme. Two parsers trained on different conversions of the Penn Treebank can differ mainly because of annotation choices, such as the head of a prepositional phrase or of a copula. The authors propose TEDEVAL: each dependency tree is mapped by deterministic…
  12. Evaluation of Dependency Parsers on Unbounded Dependencies (2010)
    Unbounded dependencies, such as an object that is extracted from a relative clause, are a standard test of grammar-based parsers, but had not been applied to dependency parsers.
  13. The CoNLL-2009 Shared Task: Syntactic and Semantic Dependencies in Multiple Languages (2009)
    This is the overview of the 2009 CoNLL shared task on joint syntactic dependency parsing and semantic role labelling.
  14. Algorithms for Deterministic Incremental Dependency Parsing (2008)
    The paper sets out deterministic incremental dependency parsing as transition systems and analyses four algorithms: two stack-based projective ones (arc-eager and arc-standard) and two list-based ones (a projective and a non-projective variant).
  15. The CoNLL 2008 Shared Task on Joint Parsing of Syntactic and Semantic Dependencies (2008)
    The 2008 CoNLL task joined syntactic dependency parsing and semantic role labelling in one dependency formalism.
  16. Characterizing the Errors of Data-Driven Dependency Parsing Models (2007) 2 ideas kept
    The paper compares the two top systems of the CoNLL-X shared task. MSTParser is a global, exhaustive graph-based model with maximum spanning tree decoding and arc-pair features; MaltParser is a local, greedy transition-based model with an SVM classifier. Both reach almost the same labeled accuracy over 13 languages…
  17. Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing (2004)
    The paper studies how incremental a deterministic, left-to-right dependency parser can be, in the sense of keeping the partially built structure connected as words arrive.
  18. Deterministic Dependency Parsing of English Text (2004)
    The paper presents one of the first deterministic, linear-time labeled dependency parsers for English, trained on the Wall Street Journal part of the Penn Treebank.
  19. An Efficient Algorithm for Projective Dependency Parsing (2003)
    Nivre defines a deterministic shift-reduce parser for projective dependency grammar. It runs in time linear in the sentence length and always returns a graph that is projective and acyclic. Its transitions are Left-Arc, Right-Arc, Reduce and Shift, and a scheduling policy decides between them. In a pilot on about…

Co-authors (90)

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/joakim-nivre/