Difference between revisions of "Comparison of part-of-speech tagging systems"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Catalan || 81.85 || 83.96 || [75.65, 78.46]|| [87.76, 90.48] || [94.16, 96.28] || [93.92, 96.16] |
| Catalan || 81.85 || 83.96 || [75.65, 78.46]|| [87.76, 90.48] || [94.16, 96.28] || [93.92, 96.16] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| Spanish || 86.18 || 86.71 || [78.20, 80.06] || [87.72, 90.27] || |
| Spanish || 86.18 || 86.71 || [78.20, 80.06] || [87.72, 90.27] || [90.15, 94.86] || [91.84, 93.70] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| Kazakh || 80.25 || 86.13 || [83.55, 86.19] || [83.33, 86.61] || n/a || n/a |
| Kazakh || 80.25 || 86.13 || [83.55, 86.19] || [83.33, 86.61] || n/a || n/a |
Revision as of 16:31, 21 December 2015
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.
Language | System | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | CG+1st | Unigram | CG+Unigram | apertium-tagger | CG+apertium-tagger | |
Catalan | 81.85 | 83.96 | [75.65, 78.46] | [87.76, 90.48] | [94.16, 96.28] | [93.92, 96.16] |
Spanish | 86.18 | 86.71 | [78.20, 80.06] | [87.72, 90.27] | [90.15, 94.86] | [91.84, 93.70] |
Kazakh | 80.25 | 86.13 | [83.55, 86.19] | [83.33, 86.61] | n/a | n/a |
Todo
- Implement this tagger: https://spacy.io/blog/part-of-speech-POS-tagger-in-python