Treebank selection for parsing evaluation and the spurious effects that might arise from a biased choice have not been explored in detail. This paper studies how evaluating on a single subset of treebanks can lead to weak conclusions. First, we take a few contrasting parsers, and run them on subsets of treebanks proposed in previous work, whose use was justified (or not) on criteria such as typology or data scarcity. Second, we run a large-scale version of this experiment, create vast amounts of random subsets of treebanks, and compare on them many parsers whose scores are available. The results show substantial variability across subsets and that although establishing guidelines for good treebank selection is hard, some inadequate strategies can be easily avoided.

This paper addressed the problem of structured sentiment analysis using a bi-affine semantic dependency parser, large pre-trained language models, and publicly available translation models. For the monolingual setup, we considered: (i) training on a single treebank, and (ii) relaxing the setup by training on treebanks coming from different languages that can be adequately processed by cross-lingual language models. For the zero-shot setup and a given target treebank, we relied on: (i) a word-level translation of available treebanks in other languages to get noisy, unlikely-grammatical, but annotated data (we release as much of it as licenses allow), and (ii) merging those translated treebanks to obtain training data. In the post-evaluation phase, we also trained cross-lingual models that simply merged all the English treebanks and did not use word-level translations, and yet obtained better results. According to the official results, we ranked 8th and 9th in the monolingual and cross-lingual setups.