Bootstrapping Recursive Patterns | We noticed that despite the specific lexico-syntactic structure of the patterns, erroneous information can be acquired due to part-of-speech tagging errors or flawed facts on the Web. |
Results | wrong part-of-speech tag none of the above |
Results | The majority of the occurred errors are due to part-of-speech tagging . |
Semantic Relations | In total, we collected 30GB raw data which was part-of-speech tagged and used for the argument and supertype extraction. |
Features | We employ a separate instance of this feature for each English part-of-speech tag : p( f | e, t). |
Features | link (e, f) if the part-of-speech tag of e is t. The conditional probabilities in this table are computed from our parse trees and the baseline Model 4 alignments. |
Features | These fire for for each link (e, f) and part-of-speech tag . |
Conclusion and Future Work | The key innovation in the present work is the combination of unsupervised part-of-speech tagging and argument identification to permit leam-ing in a simplified SRL system. |
Conclusion and Future Work | have the luxury of treating part-of-speech tagging and semantic role labeling as separable tasks. |
Introduction | By using the HMM part-of-speech tagger in this way, we can ask how the simple structural features that we propose children start with stand up to reductions in parsing accuracy. |
Introduction | Similar representations have proven useful in domain-adaptation for part-of-speech tagging and phrase chunking (Huang and Yates, 2009). |
Introduction | As with our other HMM-based models, we use the largest number of latent states that will allow the resulting model to fit in our machine’s memory — our previous experiments on representations for part-of-speech tagging suggest that more latent states are usually better. |
Introduction | Past research in a variety of NLP tasks has shown that parsers (Gildea, 2001), chunkers (Huang and Yates, 2009), part-of-speech taggers (Blitzer et al., 2006), named-entity taggers (Downey et al., 2007a), and word sense disambiguation systems (Escudero et al., 2000) all suffer from a similar drop-off in performance on out-of-domain tests. |
Conditional Random Fields | Our experiments use two standard NLP tasks, phonetization and part-of-speech tagging , chosen here to illustrate two very different situations, and to allow for comparison with results reported elsewhere in the literature. |
Conditional Random Fields | 5.1.2 Part-of-Speech Tagging |
Introduction | Based on an efficient implementation of these algorithms, we were able to train very large CRFs containing more than a hundred of output labels and up to several billion features, yielding results that are as good or better than the best reported results for two NLP benchmarks, text phonetization and part-of-speech tagging . |
Experimental Setup and Results | The first marker is the part-of-speech tag of the root and the remainder are the overt inflectional and derivational markers of the word. |
Related Work | Popovic and Ney (2004) investigated improving translation quality from inflected languages by using stems, suffixes and part-of-speech tags . |
Syntax-to-Morphology Mapping | Part-of-Speech Tags for the English words: +IN -:eposition; +PRP$ - Possessive Pronoun; +JJ - Adjective; .‘IN - Noun; +NNS - Plural Noun. |