Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli Facebook AI Menlo Park, CA, USA rasooli@fb.com Abstract We describe a cross-lingual transfer method for dependency parsing that takes into account the problem of word order differences between source and target languages. Our model only relies on the Bible, a considerably smaller parallel data than the commonly used parallel data in transfer methods. We use the concatenation of projected trees from the Bible corpus, and the gold-standard treebanks in multiple source languages along with cross-lingual word representations. We demonstrate that reordering the source treebanks before training on them for a target language improves the accuracy of languages outside the European language family. Our experiments on 68 treebanks (38 languages) in the Universal Dependencies corpus achieve a high accuracy for all languages. Among them, our experiments on 16 treebanks of 12 non-European languages achieve an average UAS absolute improvement of 3 . 3% over a state-of-the-art method. There has recently been a great deal of interest in cross-lingual transfer of dependency parsers, for which a parser is trained for a target language of interest using treebanks in other languages. Cross-lingual transfer can eliminate the need for the expensive and time-consuming task of treebank annotation for low-resource languages. Approaches include annotation projection using parallel data sets (Hwa et al., 2005; Ganchev et al., 2009), direct model transfer through learning of a delexicalized model from other treebanks (Zeman and Resnik, 2008; Tackstrom et al., 2013), treebank translation (Tiedemann et al., 2014), using synthetic treebanks (Tiedemann and Agic, 2016; Wang and Eisner, 2016), using cross-lingual word representations (Tackstrom et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2016; Rasooli and Collins, 2017) and using cross-lingual dictionaries (Durrett et al., 2012). Recent results from Rasooli and Collins (2017) have shown accuracies exceeding 80% on unlabeled attachment accuracy (UAS) for several European languages. 1 However non-European languages remain a significant challenge for cross-lingual transfer. One hypothesis, which we investigate in this paper, is that word-order differences between languages are a significant challenge for cross-lingual transfer methods. The main goal of our work is therefore to reorder gold-standard source treebanks to make those treebanks syntactically more similar to the target language of interest. We use two different approaches for source treebank reordering: 1) reordering based on dominant dependency directions according to the projected dependencies, 2) learning a classifier on the alignment data. We show that an ensemble of these methods with the baseline method leads to higher performance for the majority of datasets in our experiments. We show particularly significant improvements for non-European languages. 2 The main contributions of this work are as follows:  We propose two different syntactic reordering methods based on the dependencies projected using translation alignments. The first model is based on the dominant dependency direction in the target language according to the projected dependencies. The second model learns a reordering classifier from the small set of aligned sentences in the Bible parallel data. 1 Specifically, Table 9 of Rasooli and Collins (2017) shows 13 datasets, and 11 languages, with UAS scores of over 80%; all of these datasets are in European languages. 2 Specifically, performance of our method gives an improvement of at least 2.3% absolute scores in UAS on 11 datasets in 9 languagesCoptic, Basque, Chinese, Vietnamese, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Indonesian Hebrewwith an average improvement of over 4.5% UAS. We run an extensive set of experiments on 68 treebanks for 38 languages. We show that by just using the Bible data, we are able to achieve significant improvements in non-European languages. Our ensemble method is able to maintain a high accuracy in European languages. We show that syntactic transfer methods can outperform a supervised model for cases in which the gold-standard treebank is very small. This indicates the strength of these models when the language is truly low-resource. Unlike most previous work for which a simple delexicalized model with gold part-of-speech tags are used, we use lexical features and automatic part-of-speech tags. Our final model improves over two strong baselines, one with annotation projection and the other one inspired by the non-neural state-of-the-art model of Rasooli and Collins (2017). Our final results improve the performance on non-European languages by an average UAS absolute improvement of 3 . 3% and LAS absolute improvement of 2 . 4% . There has recently been a great deal of research on dependency parser transfer. Early work on direct model transfer (Zeman and Resnik, 2008; McDonald et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2011; Rosa and Zabokrtsky, 2015; Wang and Eisner, 2018a) considered learning a delexicalized parser from one or many source treebanks. A number of papers (Naseem et al., 2012; Tackstrom et al., 2013; Zhang and Barzilay, 2015; Ammar et al., 2016; Wang and Eisner, 2017) have considered making use of topological features to overcome the problem of syntactic differences across languages. Our work instead reorders the source treebanks to make them similar to the target language before training on the source treebanks. Agic (2017) use part-of-speech sequence similarity between the source and target language for selecting the source sentences in a direct transfer approach. Ponti et al. (2018) preprocess source trees to increase the isomorphy between the source and the target language dependency trees. They apply their method on a simple delexicalized model and their accuracy on the small set of languages that they have tried is significantly worse than ours in all languages. The recent work by Wang and Eisner (2018b) reorders delexicalized treebanks of part-of-speech sequences in order to make it more similar to the target language of interest. The latter work is similar to our work in terms of using reordering. Our work is more sophisticated by using a full-fledged parsing model with automatic part-of-speech tags and every accessible dataset such as projected trees and multiple source treebanks as well as cross-lingual word embeddings for all languages. Previous work (Tackstrom et al., 2012; Duong et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2015, 2016; Ammar et al., 2016) has considered using cross-lingual word representations. A number of authors (Durrett et al., 2012; Rasooli and Collins, 2017) have used cross-lingual dictionaries. We also make use of cross-lingual word representations and dictionaries in this paper. We use the automatically extracted dictionaries from the Bible to translate words in the source treebanks to the target language. One other line of research in the delexicalized transfer approach is creating a synthetic treebank (Tiedemann and Agic, 2016; Wang and Eisner, 2016, 2018b). Annotation projection (Hwa et al., 2005; Ganchev et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2011; Ma and Xia, 2014; Rasooli and Collins, 2015; Lacroix et al., 2016; Agic et al., 2016) is another approach in parser transfer. In this approach, supervised dependencies are projected through word alignments and then used as training data. Similar to previous work (Rasooli and Collins, 2017), we make use of a combination of projected dependencies from annotation projection in addition to partially translated source treebanks. One other approach is treebank translation (Tiedemann et al., 2014) for which a statistical machine translation system is used to translate source treebanks to the target language. These models need a large amount of parallel data for having an accurate translation system. Using the Bible data goes back to the work of Diab and Finch (2000) and Yarowsky et al. (2001). Recently there has been more interest in using the Bible data for different tasks, due to its availability for many languages (Christodouloupoulos and Steedman, 2014; Agic et al., 2015, 2016; Rasooli and Collins, 2017). Previous work ( Ostling and Tiedemann, 2017) has shown that the size of the Bible dataset does not provide a reliable machine translation model. Previous work in the context of machine translation (Bisazza and Federico, 2016; Daiber et al., 2016) presumes the availability of a parallel data that is often much larger than the Bible data. Our model trains on the concatenation of projected dependencies P and all of the source treebanks T 1 . . . T k . The projected data is from the set of projected dependencies for which at least 80% of words have projected dependencies or there is a span of length l  5 such that all words in that span achieve a projected dependency. This is the same as the definition of dense structures P 80  P  5 by Rasooli and Collins (2015). We use our reimplementation of the state-of-the-art neural biaffine graph-based parser of Dozat and Manning (2016) 3 . Because many words in the projected dependencies do not have a head assignment, the parser ignores words without heads during training. Inspired by Rasooli and Collins (2017), we replace every word in the source treebanks with its most frequent aligned translation word from the Bible data in the target language. If that word does not appear in the Bible, we use the original word. That way, we have a code-switched data for which some of the words are being translated. In addition to fine-tuning the word embeddings, we use the fixed pre-trained cross-lingual word embeddings using the training approach of Rasooli and Collins (2017) using the Wikipedia data and the Bible dictionaries. Before making use of the source treebanks T 1 . . . T k in the training data, we reorder each tree in the source treebanks to be syntactically more similar to the word order of the target language. In general, for a head h that has c modifiers m 1 . . . m c , we decide to put each of the dependents m i on the left or right of the head h . After placing them in the correct side of the head, the order in the original source sentence is preserved. Figure 1 shows a real example of an English tree that is reordered for the sake of Persian as the target language. Here we see that we have a verb-final sentence, with nominal modifiers following 3 https://github.com/rasoolims/ universal-parser I had a routine surgery for an ingrown toenail . the head noun. If one aims to translate this English sentence word by word, the reordered sentence gives a very good translation without any change in the sentence. As mentioned earlier, we use two different approaches for source treebank reordering: 1) reordering based on dominant dependency directions according to the projected dependencies, 2) learning a classifier on the alignment data. We next describe these two methods. The main goal of this model is to reorder source dependencies based on dominant dependency directions in the target language. We extract dominant dependency directions according to the projected dependencies P from the alignment data, and use the information for reordering source treebanks. Let the tuple (cid:104) i, m, h, r (cid:105) show the dependency of the m 'th word in the i 'th projected sentence for which the h 'th word is the parent with the dependency label r . (cid:104) i, m, NULL , NULL (cid:105) shows an unknown dependency for the m 'th word: this occurs when some of the words in the target sentence do not achieve a projected dependency. We use the notations h ( i, m ) and r ( i, m ) to show the head index and dependency label of the m 'th word in the i 'th sentence. Definition 2 Dependency direction proportion: Dependency direction proportion of each dependency label l with direction d  { 1 , 1 } is defined as: Definition 3 Dominant dependency direction: For each dependency label l , we define the dominant dependency direction  ( P ) ( l ) = d if  ( P ) ( l, d ) > 0 . 75 . In cases where there is no dominant dependency direction,  ( P ) ( l ) = 0 . We consider the following dependency labels for extracting dominant dependency direction information: nsubj, obj, iobj, csubj, ccomp, xcomp, obl, vocative, expl, dislocated, advcl, advmod, aux, cop, nmod, appos, nummod, acl, amod. We find the direction of other dependency relations, such as most of the function word dependencies and other non-core dependencies such as conjunction, not following a fixed pattern in the Universal Dependencies corpus. Reordering condition Given a set of projections P , we calculate the dominant dependency direction information for the projections  ( P ) . Similar to the projected dependencies, we extract supervised dominant dependency directions from the gold-standard source treebank D :  ( D ) . When we encounter a gold-standard dependency relation (cid:104) i, m, h, r (cid:105) in a source treebank D , we change the direction if the following condition holds:  ( D ) ( r ) (cid:54) =  ( P ) ( r ) and  ( P ) ( r ) =  d ( i, m ) In other words, if the source and target languages do not have the same dominant dependency direction for r and the dominant direction of the target language is the reverse of the current direction, we change the direction of that dependency. Reordering multiple dependencies in a gold standard tree then results in a reordering of the full tree, as for example in the transformation from Figure 1a to Figure 1b. We now describe our approach for learning a reordering classifier for a target language using the alignment data. Unlike the first model for which we learn concrete rules, this model learns a reordering classifier from automatically aligned data. This model has two steps; the first step prepares the training data from the automatically aligned parallel data, and the second step learns a classifier from the training data. The goal of this step is to create training data for the reordering classifier. This data is extracted from the concatenation of parallel data from all source languages translated to the target language. Given a parallel dataset ( e ( i ) , f ( i ) ) for i = 1 . . . n that contains pairs of source and target sentences e ( i ) and f ( i ) , the following steps are applied to create training data: 1. Extracting reordering mappings from alignments: We first extract intersected word alignments for each source-target sentence pair. This is done by running the Giza++ alignments (Och and Ney, 2003) in both directions. We ignore sentence pairs that more than half of the source words do not get alignment. We create a new mapping  ( i ) =  ( i ) 1 . . .  ( i ) s i that maps each index 1  j  s i in the original source sentence to a unique index 1   ( i ) j  s i in the reordered sentence. 2. Parsing source sentences: We parse each source sentence using the supervised parser of the source language. We use the mapping  ( i ) to come up with a reordered tree for each sentence. In cases for which the number of non-projective arcs in the projected tree increase compared to the original tree, we do not use the sentence in the final training data. 3. Extracting classifier instances: We create a training instance for every modifier word (cid:104) i, m, h, r (cid:105) . The decision about the direction of each dependency can be made based on the following condition: d  ( i, m ) = (cid:40) 1 if  ( i ) h >  ( i ) m  1 otherwise The LORD is a man of war : the LORD is his name . Figure 2 shows an example for the data preparation step. As shown in the figure, the new directions for the English words are decided according to the Persian alignments. The reordering classifier decides about the new direction of each dependency according to the recurrent representation of the head and dependent words. For a source sentence e ( i ) = e ( i ) 1 . . . e ( i ) s i that belongs to a source language L , we first obtain its recurrent representation  ( i ) =  ( i ) 1 . . .  ( i ) s i by running a deep (3 layers) bi-directional LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhu-ber, 1997), where  ( i ) j  R d h . For every dependency tuple (cid:104) i, m, h, r (cid:105) , we use a multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) to decide about the new order dir  { 1 , 1 } of the m 'th word with respect to its head h : p ( dir | i, m, h, r ) = softmax dir ( W  ( i, m, h, r )) where W  R 2  d  and  ( i, m, h, r )  R d  is as follows:  ( i, m, h, r ) = relu ( Hq ( i, m, h, r ) + B ) where relu is the rectified linear unit activation (Nair and Hinton, 2010), H  R d   d q , B  R d  , and q ( i, m, h, r )  R d q is as follows: q ( i, m, h, r ) = [  ( i ) m ;  ( i ) h ; R [ r ]; [ I ( h > m )]; L [ L ]] I had a routine surgery for an ingrown nail . where  ( i ) m and  ( i ) h are the recurrent representations for the modifier and head words respectively, R is the dependency relation embedding dictionary that embeds every dependency relation to a R d r vector,  is the direction embedding for the original position of the head with respect to its head and embeds each direction to a 2-dimensional vector, and L is the language embedding dictionary that embeds the source language id L to a R d L vector. The input to the recurrent layer is the concatenation of two input vectors. The first vector is the sum of the fixed pre-trained cross-lingual embeddings, and randomly initialized word vector. The second vector is the part-of-speech tag embeddings. Figure 3 shows a graphical depiction of the two reordering models that we use in this work. Datasets and Tools We use 68 datasets from 38 languages in the Universal Dependencies corpus version 2.0 (Nivre et al., 2017). The languages are Arabic (ar), Bulgarian (bg), Coptic (cop), Czech (cs), Danish (da), German (de), Greek (el), English (en), Spanish (es), Estonian (et), Basque (eu), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Hindi (hi), Croatian (hr), Hungarian (hu), Indonesian (id), Italian (it), Japanese (ja), Korean (ko), Latin (la), Lithuanian (lt), Latvian (lv), Dutch (nl), Norwegian (no), Polish (pl), Portuguese (pt), Romanian (ro), Russian (ru), Slovak (sk), Slovene (sl), Swedish (sv), Turkish (tr), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), and Chinese (zh). We use the Bible data from Christodouloupoulos and Steedman (2014) for the 38 languages. We extract word alignments using Giza++ default model (Och and Ney, 2003). Following Rasooli and Collins (2015), we obtain intersected alignments and apply soft POS consistency to filter potentially incorrect alignments. We use the Wikipedia dump data to extract monolingual data for the languages in order to train monolingual embeddings. We follow the method of Rasooli and Collins (2017) to use the extracted dictionaries from the Bible and monolingual text from Wikipedia to create cross-lingual word embeddings. We use the UDPipe pretrained models (Straka and Strakova, 2017) to tokenize Wikipedia, and a reimplementation of the Perceptron tagger of Collins (2002) 4 to achieve automatic POS tags trained on the training data of the Universal Dependencies corpus (Nivre et al., 2017). We use word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) 5 to achieve embedding vectors both in monolingual and cross-lingual settings. Supervised Parsing Models We trained our supervised models on the union of all datasets in a language to obtain a supervised model for each language. It is worth noting that there are two major changes that we make to the neural parser of Dozat and Manning (2016) in our implementation 6 using the Dynet library (Neubig et al., 2017): first, we add a one-layer character BiLSTM to represent the character information for each word. The final character representation is obtained by concatenating the forward representation of the last character and the backward representation of the first character. The concatenated vector is summed with the randomly initialized as well as fixed pre-trained cross-lingual word embedding vectors. Second, inspired by Weiss et al. (2015), we maintain the moving average parameters to obtain more robust parameters at decoding time. We excluded the following languages from the set of source languages for annotation projection due to their low supervised accuracy: Estonian, Hungarian, Korean, Latin, Lithuanian, Latvian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Baseline Transfer Models We use two baseline models: 1) Annotation projection: This model only trains on the projected dependencies. 2) Annotation projection + direct transfer: To speed up training, we sample at most thousand sentences from each treebank, comprising a training data of about 37K sentences. We noticed that our reordering models perform better in non-European languages, and perform slightly worse in European languages. We use the following ensemble model to make use of all of the three models (annotation projection + direct transfer, and the two reordering models), to make sure that we always obtain an accurate parser. The ensemble model is as follows: given three output trees for the i 'th sentence (cid:104) i j , m, h j , r j (cid:105) for j = 1 , 2 , 3 in the target language L , where the first tuple ( j = 1 ) belongs to the baseline model, the second ( j = 2 ) and third ( j = 3 ) belong to the two reordering models, we weight each dependency edge with respect to the following conditions:  ( m, h, r ) = z ( m, h, r )  3 (cid:88) j =1 c ( j, L )  I ( (cid:104) i j , m, h, r (cid:105) ) where c ( j, L ) is a coefficient that puts more weight on the first or the other two outputs depending on the target language family: c ( j, L ) =   2 if j = 1 & L is European 2 if j > 1 & L is not European 1 otherwise and z ( m, h, r ) is a simple weighting depending on the dominant order information: z ( m, h, r ) =   1 if dir ( (cid:104) m, h (cid:105) ) =   ( P ) ( r ) 3 if dir ( (cid:104) m, h (cid:105) ) =  ( P ) ( r ) 2 otherwise (  ( P ) ( r ) = 0) Variable Notation Size Word embedding d w 100 POS embedding d p 100 Bi-LSTM d h 400 Dep. The above coefficients are modestly tuned on the Persian language as our development language. We have not seen any significant change in modifying the numbers: instead, the fact that an arc with a dominant dependency direction is regarded as a more valuable arc, and the baseline should have more effect in the European languages suffices for the ensemble model. We run the Eisner first-order graph-based algorithm (Eisner, 1996) on top of the edge weights  to extract the best possible tree. We run all of the transfer models with 4000 mini-batches, in which each mini-batch contains approximately 5000 tokens. We follow the same parameters as in Dozat and Manning (2016) and use a dimension of 100 for character embeddings. For the reordering classifier, we use the Adam algorithm (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with default parameters to optimize the log-likelihood objective. We filter the alignment data to keep only those sentences for which at least half of the source words have an alignment. We randomly choose 1% of the reordering data as our heldout data for deciding when to stop training the reordering models. Table 1 shows the parameter values that we use in the reordering classifier. Table 2 shows the results on the Universal Dependencies corpus (Nivre et al., 2017). As shown in the table, the algorithm based on dominant dependency directions improves the accuracy on most of the non-European languages and performs slightly worse than the baseline model in the European languages. The ensemble model, in spite of its simplicity, improves over the baseline in most of the languages, leading to an average UAS improvement of 0 . 9 for all languages and 3 . 3 for non-European languages. This improvement is very significant in many of the non-European languages; for example, from an LAS of 37 . 6 to 52 . 7 in Coptic, from a UAS of 44 . 9 to 53 . 7 in Basque, from a UAS of 40 . 6 to 47 . 0 in Chinese. Our model also outperforms the supervised models in Ukrainian and Latvian. That is an interesting indicator that for cases that the training data is very small for a language (37 sentences for Ukrainian, and 153 sentences for Latvian), our transfer approach outperforms the supervised model. In this section, we briefly describe our analysis based on the results in the ensemble model and the baseline. For some languages such as Coptic, the number of dense projected dependencies is too small (two trees) such that the parser gives a worse learned model than a random baseline. For some other languages, such as Norwegian and Spanish, this number is too high (more than twenty thousand trees), such that the baseline model performs very well. The dominant dependency direction model generally performs better than the classifier. Our manual investigation shows that the classifier kept many of the dependency directions unchanged, while the dominant dependency direction model changed more directions. Therefore, the dominant direction model gives a higher recall with the expense of losing some precision. The training data for the reordering classifier is very noisy due to wrong alignments. We believe that the dominant direction model, besides its simplicity, is a more robust classifier for reordering, though the classifier is helpful in an ensemble setting. Our detailed analysis show that we are able to improve the head dependency relation for the three most important head POS tags in the dependency grammar. We see that this improvement is more consistent for all non-European languages. Table 3 shows the differences in parsing f-score of dependency relations for adjectives, nouns and verbs as the head. As we see in the Table, we are able to improve the head dependency relation for the three most important head POS tags in the dependency grammar. We see that this improvement is more consistent for all non-European languages. We skip the details of those analysis due to space Dataset Baselines Reordering Supervised Projection Direct+Proj Dominant Classifier Ensemble Difference UAS LAS UAS LAS UAS LAS UAS LAS UAS LAS UAS LAS UAS LAS Coptic 2.0 0.4 58.5 37.6 69.1 52.7 65.5 50.9 69.6 52.7 11.1 15.1 86.9 80.1 Basque 39.5 22.0 44.9 29.0 53.7 34.0 48.6 32.2 53.7 34.4 8.8 5.4 81.9 75.9 Chinese 23.6 10.8 40.6 17.8 47.3 25.4 45.4 23.5 47.0 25.6 6.4 7.8 81.1 74.8 Vietnamese 44.6 26.8 51.2 33.6 55.3 34.5 50.4 34.2 55.1 34.5 4.0 0.9 66.2 56.7 Turkish pud 44.7 19.9 46.6 24.5 50.3 26.7 42.6 22.0 49.9 26.3 3.4 1.8 56.7 31.7 Persian 54.4 46.2 61.8 53.0 64.3 54.7 63.0 53.4 65.1 55.4 3.3 2.4 87.8 83.6 Arabic pud 60.3 44.2 65.2 50.5 68.2 52.0 66.5 51.4 68.3 52.3 3.2 1.8 71.9 58.8 Indonesian 59.9 42.8 72.1 56.0 73.6 56.5 72.9 56.8 74.6 56.7 2.5 0.6 84.8 77.4 Turkish 44.6 23.9 46.6 29.3 48.9 30.6 44.9 26.6 49.0 30.0 2.4 0.7 64.2 52.5 Hebrew 63.1 46.9 70.4 55.4 72.4 54.9 71.6 55.7 72.7 55.4 2.3 0.0 88.2 82.4 Arabic 49.5 36.8 58.9 46.8 60.8 48.3 59.2 46.9 61.2 48.8 2.3 2.0 85.6 78.9 Japanese 54.8 38.9 65.2 46.5 65.9 46.8 64.1 44.8 66.6 46.8 1.4 0.3 94.5 92.7 Japanese pud 58.6 44.1 66.8 51.5 67.4 51.5 64.7 48.4 67.9 51.9 1.1 0.4 94.7 93.5 Korean 34.3 17.3 43.0 24.8 43.5 23.8 43.6 26.4 44.1 24.7 1.1 -0.2 76.2 69.9 Hindi pud 53.4 43.3 58.2 47.6 58.3 47.5 58.8 48.5 58.9 48.2 0.6 0.6 70.2 55.6 Lithuanian 60.6 42.5 66.6 49.5 63.7 46.8 64.6 46.0 67.2 49.9 0.6 0.4 54.8 40.0 Czech cac 33.9 14.8 76.2 66.9 76.3 66.7 75.2 65.8 76.7 67.4 0.5 0.6 92.1 88.3 Czech cltt 13.7 5.1 69.4 59.7 69.7 59.5 66.6 57.8 70.0 60.3 0.5 0.6 88.9 84.9 French partut 81.6 75.2 84.3 77.8 84.9 78.4 84.4 78.1 84.8 78.4 0.5 0.5 90.0 85.1 Croatian 70.6 59.9 79.4 69.9 79.3 69.5 77.9 67.7 79.9 70.1 0.5 0.2 86.8 80.4 Greek 62.3 47.2 75.9 63.9 75.4 63.1 74.7 62.5 76.4 64.1 0.4 0.2 88.0 84.4 Russian pud 75.7 65.8 81.1 72.2 80.9 72.2 79.9 70.7 81.5 72.7 0.4 0.5 86.5 74.1 German 71.4 62.3 75.4 67.1 75.6 67.1 75.5 66.4 75.8 67.3 0.4 0.2 85.9 81.2 French 80.2 72.9 83.0 75.9 82.9 75.9 83.3 75.9 83.4 76.2 0.4 0.3 90.4 86.9 Czech 33.9 14.5 74.6 65.3 74.1 64.4 73.0 63.7 75.0 65.8 0.4 0.5 92.5 89.1 Finnish pud 64.1 52.5 67.2 55.0 66.8 55.0 67.3 55.1 67.5 55.5 0.4 0.5 81.6 74.5 Dutch 59.2 48.2 68.5 55.2 69.6 55.9 68.3 54.4 68.8 55.4 0.4 0.1 83.5 76.6 Russian 68.9 59.4 75.1 63.9 75.4 64.1 74.5 63.4 75.5 64.3 0.4 0.4 85.7 77.9 Latin ittb 56.4 42.5 63.0 49.2 63.2 49.5 62.4 48.7 63.3 49.7 0.4 0.4 89.5 86.5 Norwegian nynorsk 72.5 62.9 76.4 68.1 76.5 68.0 76.1 67.3 76.8 68.4 0.3 0.3 91.3 88.8 Ukrainian 55.1 36.9 64.3 46.1 64.5 45.7 61.7 42.2 64.6 45.9 0.3 -0.2 43.3 22.1 Bulgarian 80.4 69.4 83.8 73.8 84.0 73.8 83.1 73.0 84.1 73.9 0.3 0.1 90.9 86.0 English lines 75.6 66.5 77.8 69.0 78.9 69.9 77.0 68.2 78.1 69.2 0.3 0.3 85.8 80.5 Finnish ftb 63.9 46.5 66.0 48.3 65.8 47.6 65.7 48.1 66.3 48.4 0.3 0.1 81.1 74.4 Russian syntagrus 69.4 57.5 73.9 62.2 73.8 61.8 73.2 61.2 74.2 62.3 0.3 0.1 91.3 88.3 Finnish 60.6 48.7 64.6 51.9 63.5 51.2 63.7 51.1 64.8 52.0 0.2 0.1 80.9 73.5 Hungarian 58.3 41.1 67.8 49.0 67.8 48.9 65.8 47.4 68.0 49.1 0.2 0.1 78.2 69.8 Czech pud 35.7 16.6 77.5 69.3 76.7 67.6 76.2 67.7 77.7 69.4 0.2 0.2 89.9 84.4 Dutch lassysmall 61.8 52.1 73.9 63.4 73.8 62.8 73.0 61.9 74.0 63.3 0.2 0.0 91.3 87.3 Slovenian sst 58.4 44.1 61.7 47.7 61.6 47.7 61.6 47.4 61.9 48.0 0.2 0.3 70.6 63.6 English pud 73.5 65.5 75.9 69.3 77.1 69.9 74.5 67.7 76.0 69.4 0.2 0.2 88.3 84.2 German pud 74.1 65.3 77.8 68.9 77.7 68.5 76.9 67.4 78.0 68.8 0.1 0.0 85.9 79.0 Polish 77.6 64.7 79.9 67.9 79.7 67.5 79.5 67.2 80.1 68.0 0.1 0.1 89.4 83.3 Swedish lines 77.2 67.7 81.1 71.6 80.7 71.1 80.1 70.4 81.3 71.7 0.1 0.1 86.9 81.5 English 70.1 61.6 72.8 64.6 73.5 65.2 71.6 63.5 72.9 64.8 0.1 0.3 88.2 84.8 Spanish 78.5 68.0 83.1 73.8 83.2 73.8 82.3 72.8 83.2 73.9 0.1 0.1 89.3 83.9 Swedish 75.3 67.0 79.0 70.9 78.8 70.9 78.2 70.0 79.1 71.0 0.1 0.1 86.7 82.3 English partut 72.0 65.3 77.4 71.1 78.0 71.1 76.3 69.9 77.5 71.2 0.1 0.1 88.4 83.0 Swedish pud 75.9 67.4 80.5 72.1 80.2 72.0 79.2 71.0 80.6 72.1 0.1 0.0 84.0 77.6 Italian 81.3 74.4 85.0 79.0 85.4 79.5 84.4 78.1 85.1 79.1 0.1 0.0 92.1 89.5 Romanian 72.8 59.0 76.8 64.2 76.2 63.7 75.3 63.2 76.8 64.3 0.1 0.1 89.6 83.5 Estonian 63.1 40.8 66.7 46.0 65.6 45.8 65.5 45.2 66.7 46.1 0.1 0.2 71.6 60.7 Portuguese 62.6 50.7 84.1 76.9 83.7 76.6 83.4 76.2 84.2 77.1 0.0 0.2 90.6 85.6 Portuguese br 60.6 47.7 81.3 71.2 80.8 70.8 80.8 70.4 81.4 71.3 0.0 0.2 91.6 89.0 Norwegian bokmaal 78.0 70.5 80.5 73.2 80.6 73.4 79.7 72.1 80.5 73.2 0.0 0.0 92.1 89.7 French pud 81.0 72.8 83.7 75.7 84.2 76.2 83.3 75.2 83.7 75.7 0.0 0.0 89.1 83.8 Spanish pud 81.3 70.9 84.3 75.6 84.6 76.0 83.6 74.6 84.3 75.7 0.0 0.1 89.1 80.8 Latvian 59.0 43.6 63.3 47.2 62.1 45.6 60.7 44.7 63.3 47.0 0.0 -0.2 71.3 61.2 Italian pud 83.8 76.0 87.3 81.3 87.5 81.3 86.5 79.9 87.3 81.2 0.0 -0.1 91.9 88.4 French sequoia 79.1 73.0 82.2 76.4 81.6 75.8 81.9 76.0 82.2 76.4 0.0 0.0 90.4 86.7 Latin 49.2 33.6 53.9 36.2 51.3 33.3 54.0 35.5 53.9 35.4 0.0 -0.8 67.2 54.5 Slovene 76.4 67.6 82.1 74.2 81.3 73.0 81.3 73.3 82.0 74.2 -0.1 0.0 88.9 85.4 Spanish ancora 77.7 66.2 82.4 72.7 82.0 72.2 81.4 71.3 82.3 72.5 -0.1 -0.3 91.1 87.0 Danish 70.7 61.7 75.7 67.4 75.3 66.7 74.6 66.2 75.6 67.2 -0.1 -0.2 83.1 79.3 Portuguese pud 63.5 51.8 82.7 75.8 82.5 75.8 82.0 74.8 82.6 75.7 -0.2 -0.1 86.4 78.5 Latin proiel 59.2 46.2 61.5 47.4 60.9 47.1 60.2 46.0 61.3 47.2 -0.2 -0.2 80.9 75.4 Slovak 73.6 63.8 78.7 71.0 78.0 69.8 77.1 68.7 78.5 70.7 -0.2 -0.3 83.5 77.9 Hindi 58.7 47.2 63.7 50.0 62.3 49.0 62.6 49.3 62.7 49.4 -1.0 -0.6 94.2 90.4 Avg. For a few number of languages such as Vietnamese, the best model, even though improves over a strong baseline, still lacks enough accuracy to be considered as a reliable parser in place of a supervised model. We believe that more research on those language will address the mentioned problem. Our current model relies on supervised part-of-speech tags. Future work should study using transferred part-of-speech tags instead of supervised tags, leading to a much more realistic scenario for low-resource languages. We have also calculated the POS trigram cosine similarity between the target language gold standard treeebanks, and the three source training datasets (original, and the two reordered datasets). In all of the non-European languages, the cosine similarity of the reordered datasets improved with different values in the range of (0 . 002 , 0 . 02) . For Czech, Portuguese, German, Greek, English, Romanian, Russian, and Slovak, both of the reordered datasets slightly decreased the trigram cosine similarity. For other languages, the cosine similarity was roughly the same. We have described a cross-lingual dependency transfer method that takes into account the problem of word order differences between the source and target languages. We have shown that applying projection-driven reordering improves the accuracy of non-European languages while maintaining the high accuracies in European languages. The focus of this paper is primarily of dependency parsing. Future work should investigate the effect of our proposed reordering methods on truly low-resource machine translation. We deeply thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback and comments.
abstain abstain method method method objective result result abstain abstain abstain other abstain abstain objective objective method result result objective objective objective abstain abstain abstain result abstain result objective method result result abstain abstain other other other abstain other other other other method method other other abstain method other other other abstain other other other other other other abstain abstain abstain method abstain method method abstain method method method abstain abstain other abstain abstain method method abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain method method abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method method method method abstain abstain abstain abstain other other other abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other abstain abstain result abstain abstain result result result abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain result other abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method result abstain objective other