Comparing a linguistic and a stochastic tagger
Comparing a linguistic and a stochastic tagger
Concerning different approaches to automatic PoS tagging: EngCG-2, a constraint-based morphological tagger, is compared in a double-blind test with a state-of-the-art statistical tagger on a common disambiguation task using a common tag set. The experiments show that for the same amount of remaining ambiguity, the error rate of the statistical tagger is one order of magnitude greater than that of the rule-based one. The two related issues of priming effects compromising the results and disagreement between human annotators are also addressed.
8 pages, LaTeX, 2 postscript figures. E-ACL'97
- Nokia (France) France
- Nokia (Finland) Finland
- Alcatel-Lucent (France) France
- University of Helsinki Finland
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Computation and Language, Computation and Language (cs.CL)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Computation and Language, Computation and Language (cs.CL)
selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources.This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).21 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 1% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10%
Citations provided by BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!