How Much Does Corpus Choice Change Dependency-Distance Estimates?

Sirui Chen

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.04223

How Much Does Corpus Choice Change Dependency-Distance Estimates?

Sirui Chen

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Dependency-distance estimates derived from a single corpus are routinely treated as properties of a language, yet this assumption has not been tested across independently compiled corpora. We compared mean dependency-distance estimates across 38 same-language treebank pairs from Universal Dependencies v2.18, using concordance correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and a twelve-specification multiverse design. Cross-treebank agreement was moderate at best: substituting one treebank for another reversed nearly 40 percent of pairwise language orderings, and treebank choice accounted for roughly 29 percent of between-group variance. This disagreement substantially exceeded within-treebank sampling error and persisted across all twelve preprocessing specifications. Nevertheless, every treebank confirmed dependency-length minimization (normalized ratio below 1). The data are more consistent with MDD as a corpus-conditioned composite of grammatical, register, and annotation factors than as a stable language-level parameter: the qualitative DLM universal survives corpus substitution, but the ordinal cross-linguistic ranking does not.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Sirui Chen. 2026-07-06. How Much Does Corpus Choice Change Dependency-Distance Estimates?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04223

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.CL subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Replicating a Disjoint-Set Union Experiment over Various Notions of Micro Units to assess Translation Effort

The paper describes a replication experiment to assess "the distribution of editing procedures across micro and macro units as an indicator of the strain of text production". We investigate various pause thresholds to isolate Micro and Macro units and conclude that process-based units might be more suitable entity.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Infra-Bench CLS: A Global, Open-Source Benchmark for Critical Infrastructure Classification with Earth Observation Foundation Models

Critical infrastructure location data is often incomplete and unevenly distributed globally, especially in developing regions. Earth observation foundation models are proposed as a new step in enabling us to more efficiently understand the natural and built environment, raising questions as to their effectiveness in performing challenging downstream tasks. Yet, foundation models remain largely untested for detecting and classifying the facility-scale critical infrastructure that underpins a range of important societal and economic functions. Subsequently, Infra-Bench CLS is introduced as a benchmark to test foundation models on 18,756 Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2 multispectral facility-scale critical infrastructure asset images covering seven continents and 13 infrastructure classes, with results reported for the 10 retained classes. Using linear probing and fine-tuning for two training dataset levels (1.0x and 0.3x), seven foundation models are evaluated (SatlasPretrain S2, SatlasPretrain S1, CROMA, Prithvi-EO-2.0, AlphaEarth Foundations, OlmoEarth v1.1-Base, and DINOv3 ViT-L/16). When comparing macro F1 scores to a ResNet-18 supervised baseline of 39.2 percent, the best foundation model achieved 57.9 percent, a 48 percent improvement. Top performing classes were airports (F1 85.3 percent), train stations (F1 82.1 percent), and data centers (F1 77.6 percent). By contrast, many of the power sector classes perform poorly (F1 27.5-46.2 percent). These findings suggest foundation models can enable superior critical infrastructure classification, but future work should evaluate performance on higher-resolution imagery, particularly for poorly performing sectors, such as power.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL↗