Difference between revisions of "Comparison of part-of-speech tagging systems"

From Apertium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Kazakh || 403 || 4,348 || ? || 80.25 || 86.13 || [83.55, 86.19] || [83.33, 86.61] || n/a || n/a
 
| Kazakh || 403 || 4,348 || ? || 80.25 || 86.13 || [83.55, 86.19] || [83.33, 86.61] || n/a || n/a
  +
|-
  +
| Portuguese || 119 || 3,823 || ? || 68.16 || 75.24 || [71.34, 84.59] || [70.02, 81.61] || ||
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 12:23, 4 January 2016

Apertium would like to have really good part-of-speech tagging, but in many cases falls below the state-of-the-art (around 97% tagging accuracy). This page intends to collect a comparison of tagging systems in Apertium and give some ideas of what could be done to improve them.

In the following table, the intervals represent the [low, high] values from 10-fold cross validation.

Language Corpus System
Sent Tok Amb 1st CG+1st Unigram CG+Unigram apertium-tagger CG+apertium-tagger
Catalan 1,413 24,144 ? 81.85 83.96 [75.65, 78.46] [87.76, 90.48] [94.16, 96.28] [93.92, 96.16]
Spanish 1,271 21,247 ? 86.18 86.71 [78.20, 80.06] [87.72, 90.27] [90.15, 94.86] [91.84, 93.70]
Serbo-Croatian 1,190 20,128 ? 75.22 79.67 [75.36, 78.79] [75.36, 77.28]
Russian 451 10,171 ? 75.63 79.52 [70.49, 72.94] [74.68, 78.65] n/a n/a
Kazakh 403 4,348 ? 80.25 86.13 [83.55, 86.19] [83.33, 86.61] n/a n/a
Portuguese 119 3,823 ? 68.16 75.24 [71.34, 84.59] [70.02, 81.61]

Sent = sentences, Tok = tokens, Amb = average ambiguity from the morphological analyser

Systems

  • 1st: Selects the first analysis from the morphological analyser
  • CG: Uses the CG (from the monolingual language package in languages) to preprocess the input.
  • Unigram: Lexicalised unigram tagger
  • apertium-tagger: Uses the bigram HMM tagger included with Apertium.

Corpora

The tagged corpora used in the experiments are found in the monolingual packages in languages, under the texts/ subdirectory.

Todo