Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6264-3_23
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different POS Tagging Techniques (n-gram, HMM and Brill’s tagger) for Bangla

Abstract: Abstract-There are different approaches to the problem of assigning each word of a text with a parts-of-speech tag, which is known as Part-Of-Speech (POS) tagging. In this paper we compare the performance of a few POS tagging techniques for Bangla language, e.g. statistical approach (n-gram, HMM) and transformation based approach (Brill's tagger). A supervised POS tagging approach requires a large amount of annotated training corpus to tag properly. At this initial stage of POS-tagging for Bangla, we have very… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two taggers were built on the basis of different approaches: rule‐based and probabilistic approaches. The Monty Tagger, a rule‐based POS tagger, implements Eric Brill's transformational‐based learning POS tagger (Brill, 1994) that is known as an effective tagger (Hasan, UzZaman, Khan, 2007). TreeTagger (Schmid, 1994), developed at the Institute for Computational Linguistics of the University of Stuttgart, is one of the popular probabilistic approach‐based POS taggers (Marcus, Santorini, & Marcinkiewicz, 1993).…”
Section: Analysis Of Lcsh: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two taggers were built on the basis of different approaches: rule‐based and probabilistic approaches. The Monty Tagger, a rule‐based POS tagger, implements Eric Brill's transformational‐based learning POS tagger (Brill, 1994) that is known as an effective tagger (Hasan, UzZaman, Khan, 2007). TreeTagger (Schmid, 1994), developed at the Institute for Computational Linguistics of the University of Stuttgart, is one of the popular probabilistic approach‐based POS taggers (Marcus, Santorini, & Marcinkiewicz, 1993).…”
Section: Analysis Of Lcsh: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They proposed a way to implement a corpus by collecting data from online resources [2]. They implemented a POS tagger based on HMM, n-gram and Brill's tagger [3]. The result is analyzed with a small corpus of 5000 words giving an accuracy of only 55%.…”
Section: Related Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because a term can represent more than one part of speech at different sentences, and some parts of speech are complex or indistinct, it becomes difficult to perform the process exactly. However, research has improved the accuracy of POS tagging, giving rise to various effective POS taggers such as TreeTagger, TnT (based on the Hidden Markov model), Stanford tagger [4,10,12]. State of the art taggers highlight accuracy of circ 93% compared to the human's tagging results.…”
Section: Part-of-speech Taggingmentioning
confidence: 99%