2018
DOI: 10.1017/s1351324918000281
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of morphology in named entity recognition with sequence tagging

Abstract: This work proposes a sequential tagger for named entity recognition in morphologically rich languages. Several schemes for representing the morphological analysis of a word in the context of named entity recognition are examined. Word representations are formed by concatenating word and character embeddings with the morphological embeddings based on these schemes. The impact of these representations is measured by training and evaluating a sequential tagger composed of a conditional random field layer on top o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
30
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown by Lample et al (2016) and Ma and Hovy (2016), these approaches yield state-of-the-art accuracy without the need for hand-crafted features or gazetteers employed in previous state-of-the-art statistical models (Finkel et al, 2005). In addition, it was recently shown by Güngör et al (2019Güngör et al ( , 2018 that, especially for morphologically rich languages such as Turkish and Finnish, using additional word representations based on linguistic properties of the words (encoded as the output of a morphological analyser) improves the performance further compared with using only representations based on the surface forms of words. Despite their success, however, these architectures have an evident shortcoming in that they only consider the top-level NE annotation while ignoring the nested entities during both training and prediction.…”
Section: Neural Network Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown by Lample et al (2016) and Ma and Hovy (2016), these approaches yield state-of-the-art accuracy without the need for hand-crafted features or gazetteers employed in previous state-of-the-art statistical models (Finkel et al, 2005). In addition, it was recently shown by Güngör et al (2019Güngör et al ( , 2018 that, especially for morphologically rich languages such as Turkish and Finnish, using additional word representations based on linguistic properties of the words (encoded as the output of a morphological analyser) improves the performance further compared with using only representations based on the surface forms of words. Despite their success, however, these architectures have an evident shortcoming in that they only consider the top-level NE annotation while ignoring the nested entities during both training and prediction.…”
Section: Neural Network Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Finally, Güngör et al (2019) employed the Digitoday corpus as a part of their study on the effect of morphology on named entity recognition. Again, their experiments were run on a version under development.…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lample et al (2016) proposed a LSTM-CRF (conditional random fields) model and this has been widely used and extended for the flat NER, e.g., Akbik et al (2018). In recent studies of neural network based flat NER, Gungor et al (2018Gungor et al ( , 2019 have shown that morphological analysis using additional word representations based on linguistic properties of the words, especially for morphologically rich languages such as Turkish and Finnish, improves the NER performances further compared with using only representations based on the surface forms of words.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We demonstrate the method on named entity recognition (NER) task by using a NER tagger trained on Turkish and Finnish both of which are morphologically rich languages [ 7 , 8 ]. The tagger requires all the morphological analyses of each token in the sentence to be provided to the model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%