Skip to main content

Evaluating Arabic Parser and Recommending Improvements

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 2800 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 639))

Abstract

This paper concentrates on contrasting between two well-known Arabic parsers that is the Stanford Parser and the Bikel parser by utilizing the Arabic Treebank (ATB). The contrast between the Stanford and Bikel parser is done for model preparing and testing, for this reason we made a software that empowers us to change over the ATB arrangement to language structure organize, change over the Arabic Morphological labels (tags) to Penn labels (tags), and assess the parsers yield by ascertaining the Precision, Recall, F-Score, and Tag Accuracy. We additionally alter Bikel Parser to utilize the Penn labels (tags) in preparing to enhance the Precision, Recall, F-Score, and Tag Accuracy comes about because of the parse yield.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bikel, D.M.: Intricacies of Collins’ parsing model. Comput. Linguist. 30(4), 479–511 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Collins, M.: A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 184–191 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Collins, M.: Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In: Proceedings of ACL-EACL 1997, pp. 16–23 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Farghaly, A., Shaalan, K.: Arabic natural language processing: challenges and solutions. ACM Trans. Asian Lang. Inf. Process. (TALIP) 8(4), 14 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Habash, N., Faraj, R., Roth, R.: Syntactic annotation in the Columbia Arabic treebank. In: Proceedings of MEDAR International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hajic, J., Smrz, O., Zemánek, P., Šnaidauf, J., Beška, E.: Prague Arabic dependency treebank: development in data and tools. In: Proceedings of the NEMLAR International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, pp. 110–117, September 2004

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hajič, J., Hladká, B.: Tagging inflective languages: prediction of morphological categories for a rich, structured tagset. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 483–490. Association for Computational Linguistics, August 1998

    Google Scholar 

  9. Klein, D., Manning, C.D.: Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 423–430. Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2003

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marcus, M.P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M.A.: Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Comput. Linguist. 19(2), 313–330 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maytham, A., Allan, R.: Evaluation of combining data-driven dependency parsers for Arabic. In: Proceedings of the 5th Language & Technology Conference Human Language Technologies as a Challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics, pp. 546– 550 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shaalan, K., Magdy, M., Fahmy, A.: Analysis and feedback of erroneous arabic verbs. J. Nat. Lang. Eng. (JNLE) 21(2), 271–323 (2015). Cambridge University Press, UK

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ray, S., Shaalan, K.: A review and future perspectives of Arabic question answering systems. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. (2016). doi:10.1109/TKDE.2016.2607201. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  14. Siddiqui, S., Monem, A.A., Shaalan, K.: Sentiment analysis in Arabic. In: International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, pp. 409–414. Springer International Publishing, June 2016

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjeera Siddiqui .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ezzeldin, K., Siddiqui, S., Shaalan, K. (2018). Evaluating Arabic Parser and Recommending Improvements. In: Hassanien, A., Shaalan, K., Gaber, T., Tolba, M. (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2017. AISI 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 639. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64861-3_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64861-3_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64860-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64861-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics