In the previous examples, you will have noticed an emphasis on accuracy scores. In fact, evaluating the performance of such tools is a central theme in NLP. Recall the processing pipeline in Figure 1-5; any errors in the output of one module are greatly multiplied in the downstream modules.
We evaluate the performance of a tagger relative to the tags a human expert would assign. Since we usually don't have access to an expert and impartial human judge, we make do instead with gold standard test data. This is a corpus which has been manually annotated and accepted as a standard against which the guesses of an automatic system are assessed. The tagger is regarded as being correct if the tag it guesses for a given word is the same as the gold standard tag.
Of course, the humans who designed and carried out the original gold standard annotation were only human. Further analysis might show mistakes in the gold standard, or may eventually lead to a revised tagset and more elaborate guidelines. Nevertheless, the gold standard is by definition "correct" as far as the evaluation of an automatic tagger is concerned.
Lookup Tagger Performance with Varying Model Size 1.0-- -----——--—:—- -——
0' 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Developing an annotated corpus is a major undertaking. Apart from the data, it generates sophisticated tools, documentation, and practices for ensuring high-quality annotation. The tagsets and other coding schemes inevitably depend on some theoretical position that is not shared by all. However, corpus creators often go to great lengths to make their work as theory-neutral as possible in order to maximize the usefulness of their work. We will discuss the challenges of creating a corpus in Chapter 11.
Was this article helpful?