[ Skip to the content ]

Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics Wiki

• ÚFAL Wiki Home
• ÚFAL Home
• Sitemap
• RSS
• ÚFAL calendar
• Recent changes
• Login
• Hledat:

[ Back to the navigation ]

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

View differences: Side by SideInline Go

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision 2012/03/22 18:18 zeman Parsing.2012/03/22 17:28 zeman Sample.2012/03/22 17:06 zeman Inside.2012/03/22 16:47 zeman ICON 2010 Telugu data size.2012/03/22 11:46 zeman ICON 2009 Telugu data size.2012/03/22 11:34 zeman Training data size (both sentences and words) was identical in ICON 2009 and 2010.2012/03/22 11:30 zeman Size.2012/03/22 11:14 zeman vytvořeno Go Next revision		Previous revision 2012/03/22 18:18 zeman Parsing.2012/03/22 17:28 zeman Sample.2012/03/22 17:06 zeman Inside.2012/03/22 16:47 zeman ICON 2010 Telugu data size.2012/03/22 11:46 zeman ICON 2009 Telugu data size.2012/03/22 11:34 zeman Training data size (both sentences and words) was identical in ICON 2009 and 2010.2012/03/22 11:30 zeman Size.2012/03/22 11:14 zeman vytvořeno Go Next revision Both sides next revision
user:zeman:treebanks:te [2012/03/22 11:30] zeman Size.		user:zeman:treebanks:te [2012/03/22 16:47] zeman ICON 2010 Telugu data size.
Line 46:		Line 46:
	^ Part ^ Sentences ^ Chunks ^ Ratio ^		^ Part ^ Sentences ^ Chunks ^ Ratio ^
-	| Training | 980 | 6449 | 6.58 |	+	| Training    |  1456 |  5494 | 3.77 |
-	| Development | 150 | 811 | 5.41 |	+	| Development |   150 |   675 | 4.50 |
-	| Test | 150 | 961 | 6.41 |	+	| Test        |   150 |   583 | 3.89 |
-	| TOTAL | 1280 | 8221 | 6.42 |	+	| TOTAL       |  1756 |  6752 | 3.85 |
-	The ICON 2010 version came with a data split into three parts: training, development and test:	+	As for ICON 2010, the data description in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2010/files/documents/toolscontest10-workshoppaper-final.pdf|(Husain et al., 2010)]] does not match the data that we downloaded during the contest. They indicate the number of words, while we can count the number of nodes, i.e. chunks. Anyway, the number of training sentences should match and it does not. Also note that they give the same number of words as they gave for ICON 2009 in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2009/CR/intro-husain.pdf|(Husain et al., 2009)]]. In any case, the training data shrank during the year (clean up?) In the following table, we give both the published and real numbers of sentences, the published number of words and the counted number of chunks (nodes).
-	^ Part ^ Sentences ^ Chunks ^ Ratio ^ Words ^ Ratio ^	+	^ Part ^ Sentences ^ Chunks ^ Ratio ^ PSentences ^ Words ^ Ratio ^
-	| Training | 1400 | ? | ? | 7602 | 5.43 |	+	| Training    |  1300 |  5125 |  3.94 |  1400 |  7602 |  5.43 |
-	| Development | 150 | ? | ? | 839 | 5.59 |	+	| Development |   150 |   597 |  3.98 |   150 |   839 |  5.59 |
-	| Test | 150 | ? | ? | 836 | 5.57 |	+	| Test        |   150 |   599 |  3.99 |   150 |   836 |  5.57 |
-	| TOTAL | 1700 | ? | ? | 9277 | 5.46 |	+	| TOTAL       |  1600 |  6321 |  3.95 |  1700 |  9277 |  5.46 |
-		+
-	We drew our training and test data from the ICON 2010 datasets but we have fewer sentences – why?	+
-		+
-	^ Part ^ Sentences ^ Chunks ^ Ratio ^	+
-	| Training |  1300 |  5125 | 3.94 |	+
-	| Test     |   150 |   597 | 3.98 |	+
-	| TOTAL    |  1450 |  5722 | 3.95 |	+
	==== Inside ====		==== Inside ====

---

[ Back to the navigation ] [ Back to the content ]