阿拉伯语变音符工具的调查与比较研究

O. Hamed, Torsten Zesch
{"title":"阿拉伯语变音符工具的调查与比较研究","authors":"O. Hamed, Torsten Zesch","doi":"10.21248/jlcl.32.2017.213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern Standard Arabic, as well as other languages based on the Arabic script, are usually written without diacritics, which complicates many language processing tasks. Although many different approaches for automatic diacritization of Arabic have been proposed, it is still unclear what performance level can be expected in a practical setting. For that purpose, we first survey the Arabic diacritization tools in the literature and group the results by the corpus used for testing. We then conduct a comparative study between the available tools for diacritization (Farasa and Madamira) as well as two baselines. We evaluate the error rates for these systems using a set of publicly available, fully-diacritized corpora in two different evaluation modes. With the help of human annotators, we conduct an additional experiment examining error categories. We find that Farasa is outperforming Madamira and the baselines in both modes.","PeriodicalId":402489,"journal":{"name":"J. Lang. Technol. Comput. Linguistics","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Survey and Comparative Study of Arabic Diacritization Tools\",\"authors\":\"O. Hamed, Torsten Zesch\",\"doi\":\"10.21248/jlcl.32.2017.213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern Standard Arabic, as well as other languages based on the Arabic script, are usually written without diacritics, which complicates many language processing tasks. Although many different approaches for automatic diacritization of Arabic have been proposed, it is still unclear what performance level can be expected in a practical setting. For that purpose, we first survey the Arabic diacritization tools in the literature and group the results by the corpus used for testing. We then conduct a comparative study between the available tools for diacritization (Farasa and Madamira) as well as two baselines. We evaluate the error rates for these systems using a set of publicly available, fully-diacritized corpora in two different evaluation modes. With the help of human annotators, we conduct an additional experiment examining error categories. We find that Farasa is outperforming Madamira and the baselines in both modes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":402489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Lang. Technol. Comput. Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Lang. Technol. Comput. Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21248/jlcl.32.2017.213\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Lang. Technol. Comput. Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21248/jlcl.32.2017.213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

现代标准阿拉伯语以及其他基于阿拉伯文字的语言通常不使用变音符号,这使许多语言处理任务变得复杂。虽然已经提出了许多不同的阿拉伯语自动变音符化方法,但目前尚不清楚在实际设置中可以预期的性能水平。为此,我们首先调查了文献中的阿拉伯语变音符工具,并根据用于测试的语料库对结果进行了分组。然后,我们对可用的变音符化工具(Farasa和Madamira)以及两条基线进行了比较研究。我们使用一组公开可用的、完全变音符化的语料库,在两种不同的评估模式下评估这些系统的错误率。在人类注释者的帮助下,我们进行了一个检查错误类别的额外实验。我们发现,在两种模式下,Farasa的表现都优于Madamira和基线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Survey and Comparative Study of Arabic Diacritization Tools
Modern Standard Arabic, as well as other languages based on the Arabic script, are usually written without diacritics, which complicates many language processing tasks. Although many different approaches for automatic diacritization of Arabic have been proposed, it is still unclear what performance level can be expected in a practical setting. For that purpose, we first survey the Arabic diacritization tools in the literature and group the results by the corpus used for testing. We then conduct a comparative study between the available tools for diacritization (Farasa and Madamira) as well as two baselines. We evaluate the error rates for these systems using a set of publicly available, fully-diacritized corpora in two different evaluation modes. With the help of human annotators, we conduct an additional experiment examining error categories. We find that Farasa is outperforming Madamira and the baselines in both modes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信