Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Evaluation methodologies (2) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
This paper describes general requirements for evaluating and documenting NLP tools with a focus on morphological analysers and the design of a Gold Standard. It is argued that any evaluation must be measurable and documentation thereof must be made accessible for any user of the tool. The documentation must be of a kind that it enables the user to compare different tools offering the same service, hence the descriptions must contain measurable values. A Gold Standard presents a vital part of any measurable evaluation process, therefore, the corpus-based design of a Gold Standard, its creation and problems that occur are reported upon here. Our project concentrates on SMOR, a morphological analyser for German that is to be offered as a web-service. We not only utilize this analyser for designing the Gold Standard, but also evaluate the tool itself at the same time. Note that the project is ongoing, therefore, we cannot present final results.
How to Compare Treebanks
(2008)
Recent years have seen an increasing interest in developing standards for linguistic annotation, with a focus on the interoperability of the resources. This effort, however, requires a profound knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of linguistic annotation schemes in order to avoid importing the flaws and weaknesses of existing encoding schemes into the new standards. This paper addresses the question how to compare syntactically annotated corpora and gain insights into the usefulness of specific design decisions. We present an exhaustive evaluation of two German treebanks with crucially different encoding schemes. We evaluate three different parsers trained on the two treebanks and compare results using EVALB, the Leaf-Ancestor metric, and a dependency-based evaluation. Furthermore, we present TePaCoC, a new testsuite for the evaluation of parsers on complex German grammatical constructions. The testsuite provides a well thought-out error classification, which enables us to compare parser output for parsers trained on treebanks with different encoding schemes and provides interesting insights into the impact of treebank annotation schemes on specific constructions like PP attachment or non-constituent coordination.