← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2606.24337 · v2
Meet UD_Czech-PDTC: A Large and Genre-Rich Treebank in Universal Dependencies
首次提交 2026-06-23 17:22
版本更新 2026-11-10 21:04
雷达观测 2026-11-11 13:08
摘要
Czech has been part of Universal Dependencies since its first release in 2015. It has also been one of the best represented languages, with the Prague Dependency Treebank being order of magnitude larger than most other UD treebanks. More recently, three other datasets from the Prague family were added and the annotations thoroughly revisited, forming the "Prague Dependency Treebank-Consolidated" (PDT-C). In comparison to the original PDT, PDT-C is more than twice as large, but it is also much more diverse in terms of genres and domains. In this paper, we describe the conversion of the new resource to Universal Dependencies. While the two annotation schemes are relatively similar at the first sight, there are numerous small differences in topology of the dependency structures and in granularity of the POS and relation type inventories. We demonstrate a selection of such differences on examples, discuss the diverging motivations, as well as ways to overcome the differences during conversion. We argue that while PDT is less "universal" and more tightly bound to one language, its multi-layer annotation is rich and provides all information needed for basic UD trees, and much more.
作者备注：Accepted to LREC 2026
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-10 21:04 · 最新观测版本
Meet UD_Czech-PDTC: A Large and Genre-Rich Treebank in Universal Dependencies
Czech has been part of Universal Dependencies since its first release in 2015. It has also been one of the best represented languages, with the Prague Dependency Treebank being order of magnitude larger than most other UD treebanks. More recently, three other datasets from the Prague family were added and the annotations thoroughly revisited, forming the "Prague Dependency Treebank-Consolidated" (PDT-C). In comparison to the original PDT, PDT-C is more than twice as large, but it is also much more diverse in terms of genres and domains. In this paper, we describe the conversion of the new resource to Universal Dependencies. While the two annotation schemes are relatively similar at the first sight, there are numerous small differences in topology of the dependency structures and in granularity of the POS and relation type inventories. We demonstrate a selection of such differences on examples, discuss the diverging motivations, as well as ways to overcome the differences during conversion. We argue that while PDT is less "universal" and more tightly bound to one language, its multi-layer annotation is rich and provides all information needed for basic UD trees, and much more.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗