The Surface Realization Shared Tasks of 2018 and 2019 were Natural Language Generation shared tasks with the goal of exploring approaches to surface realization from Universal-Dependency-like trees to surface strings for several languages. In the 2018 shared task there was very little difference in the absolute performance of systems trained with and without additional, synthetically created data, and a new rule prohibiting the use of synthetic data was introduced for the 2019 shared task. Contrary to the findings of the 2018 shared task, we show, in experiments on the English 2018 dataset, that the use of synthetic data can have a substantial positive effect – an improvement of almost 8 BLEU points for a previously state-of-the-art system. We analyse the effects of synthetic data, and we argue that its use should be encouraged rather than prohibited so that future research efforts continue to explore systems that can take advantage of such data.

A recent advance in monolingual dependency parsing is the idea of a treebank embedding vector, which allows all treebanks for a particular language to be used as training data while at the same time allowing the model to prefer training data from one treebank over others and to select the preferred treebank at test time. We build on this idea by 1) introducing a method to predict a treebank vector for sentences that do not come from a treebank used in training, and 2) exploring what happens when we move away from predefined treebank embedding vectors during test time and instead devise tailored interpolations. We show that 1) there are interpolated vectors that are superior to the predefined ones, and 2) treebank vectors can be predicted with sufficient accuracy, for nine out of ten test languages, to match the performance of an oracle approach that knows the most suitable predefined treebank embedding for the test set.

We describe the ADAPT system for the 2020 IWPT Shared Task on parsing enhanced Universal Dependencies in 17 languages. We implement a pipeline approach using UDPipe and UDPipe-future to provide initial levels of annotation. The enhanced dependency graph is either produced by a graph-based semantic dependency parser or is built from the basic tree using a small set of heuristics. Our results show that, for the majority of languages, a semantic dependency parser can be successfully applied to the task of parsing enhanced dependencies. Unfortunately, we did not ensure a connected graph as part of our pipeline approach and our competition submission relied on a last-minute fix to pass the validation script which harmed our official evaluation scores significantly. Our submission ranked eighth in the official evaluation with a macro-averaged coarse ELAS F1 of 67.23 and a treebank average of 67.49. We later implemented our own graph-connecting fix which resulted in a score of 79.53 (language average) or 79.76 (treebank average), which would have placed fourth in the competition evaluation.