Apertium has moved from SourceForge to GitHub.
If you have any questions, please come and talk to us on #apertium on irc.freenode.net or contact the GitHub migration team.

Comparison of part-of-speech tagging systems

From Apertium
Revision as of 23:45, 4 January 2016 by Francis Tyers (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

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  ? 72.51 82.95 [76.88, 92.42] [79.90, 91.30]

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

Personal tools