| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
|
|
user:zeman:treebanks:te [2012/03/22 17:28]
zeman Sample. |
user:zeman:treebanks:te [2012/03/22 18:18] (current)
zeman Parsing. |
| ==== Parsing ==== | ==== Parsing ==== |
| |
| Nonprojectivities in HyDT-Bangla are not frequent. Only 78 of the 7252 chunks in the training+development ICON 2010 version are attached nonprojectively (1.08%). | Nonprojectivities in HyDT-Telugu are very rare. Only 13 of the 5722 chunks in the training+development ICON 2010 version are attached nonprojectively (0.23%). |
| |
| The results of the ICON 2009 NLP tools contest have been published in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2009/CR/intro-husain.pdf|(Husain, 2009)]]. There were two evaluation rounds, the first with the coarse-grained syntactic tags, the second with the fine-grained syntactic tags. To reward language independence, only systems that parsed all three languages were officially ranked. The following table presents the Bengali/coarse-grained results of the four officially ranked systems, and the best Bengali-only* system. | The results of the ICON 2009 NLP tools contest have been published in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2009/CR/intro-husain.pdf|(Husain, 2009)]]. There were two evaluation rounds, the first with the coarse-grained syntactic tags, the second with the fine-grained syntactic tags. To reward language independence, only systems that parsed all three languages were officially ranked. The following table presents the Telugu/coarse-grained results of the four officially ranked systems. |
| |
| ^ Parser (Authors) ^ LAS ^ UAS ^ | ^ Parser (Authors) ^ LAS ^ UAS ^ |
| | Kolkata (De et al.)* | 84.29 | 90.32 | | | Malt (Nivre) | 62.44 | 86.28 | |
| | Hyderabad (Ambati et al.) | 78.25 | 90.22 | | | Mannem | 65.01 | 85.76 | |
| | Malt (Nivre) | 76.07 | 88.97 | | | Hyderabad (Ambati et al.) | 65.01 | 85.25 | |
| | Malt+MST (Zeman) | 71.49 | 86.89 | | | Malt+MST (Zeman) | 56.43 | 81.30 | |
| | Mannem | 70.34 | 83.56 | | |
| |
| The results of the ICON 2010 NLP tools contest have been published in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2010/files/documents/toolscontest10-workshoppaper-final.pdf|(Husain et al., 2010)]], page 6. These are the best results for Bengali with fine-grained syntactic tags: | The results of the ICON 2010 NLP tools contest have been published in [[http://ltrc.iiit.ac.in/nlptools2010/files/documents/toolscontest10-workshoppaper-final.pdf|(Husain et al., 2010)]], page 6. These are the best results for Telugu with fine-grained syntactic tags: |
| |
| ^ Parser (Authors) ^ LAS ^ UAS ^ | ^ Parser (Authors) ^ LAS ^ UAS ^ |
| | Attardi et al. | 70.66 | 87.41 | | | Kosaraju et al. | 70.12 | 91.82 | |
| | Kosaraju et al. | 70.55 | 86.16 | | | Attardi et al. | 65.61 | 90.48 | |
| | Kolachina et al. | 70.14 | 87.10 | | | Kolachina et al. | 68.11 | 90.15 | |
| |
