CRFPar

Reported on 6 benchmarks across 1 task · 1 paper · 4 SOTA

Note: results are matched by exact model name. Different papers may use the same name for different model variants.

Natural Language Processing6 results

Dependency ParsingonCoNLL-2009
LAS· 2020-05-03
86.52
SOTA
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975
Dependency ParsingonCoNLL-2009
UAS· 2020-05-03
89.63
SOTA
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975
Dependency ParsingonNLPCC-2019
LAS· 2020-05-03
72.33
SOTA
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975
Dependency ParsingonNLPCC-2019
UAS· 2020-05-03
78.02
SOTA
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975
Dependency ParsingonPenn Treebank
LAS· 2020-05-03
94.49
best: 96.26 (Label Attention Layer + HPSG + XLNet)
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975
Dependency ParsingonPenn Treebank
UAS· 2020-05-03
96.14
best: 97.42 (Label Attention Layer + HPSG + XLNet)
Efficient Second-Order TreeCRF for Neural Dependency Parsing arXiv:2005.00975