Comparison of part-of-speech tagging systems

From Apertium
Revision as of 14:49, 23 April 2016 by Francis Tyers (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

System Language
Catalan Spanish Serbo-Croatian Russian Kazakh Portuguese Swedish
24,144 21,247 20,128 10,171 4,348 3,823 239
1st 81.85 86.18 75.22 75.63 80.79 72.54 72.90
CG→1st 83.96 86.71 79.67 79.52 86.19 87.34 73.86
Unigram
CG→Unigram
apertium-tagger (unsup)
CG→apertium-tagger (unsup)
apertium-tagger (sup)
CG→apertium-tagger (sup)
CG→kaz-tagger
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 ? 80.79 86.19 [84.36, 87.79] [85.56, 88.72] n/a n/a
Portuguese 119 3,823 ? 72.54 87.34 [77.10, 87.72] [84.05, 91.96]
Swedish 11 239 ? 72.90 73.86 [56.00, 82.97]

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