Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A Morpho-Syntactically Informed LSTM-CRF Model for Named Entity Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding coarse-grained part-of-speech tags to a neural named entity recognizer raises Bulgarian NER performance to 92.20 F1, beating the previous state of the art of 89.40 without external resources.

desk verdict Solid Bulgarian NER results and public artifacts, but the POS-granularity claim is confounded by the entity-specific H tag and by test-set-selected hyperparameters. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10261 v1 pith:CUBBAJMW submitted 2019-08-27 cs.CL

Lilia Simeonova , Kiril Simov , Petya Osenova , Preslav Nakov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords namedentityrecognitionBulgarianBi-LSTM-CRFpart-of-speechtagsmorphologicalfeaturesmorphologicallyrichlanguagesBulTreeBankcharacterembeddings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a standard neural named entity recognition (NER) model, which normally reads only words and character substrings, misses information that matters in morphologically rich languages like Bulgarian. For such languages, the authors claim, feeding the model explicit part-of-speech (POS) tags and morphological features as small one-hot vectors yields substantial gains. Specifically, coarse-grained POS tags—for instance, distinguishing nouns, adjectives, and hybrid family-name/adjective forms from prepositions—matter more than fine-grained morphological details like gender, number, and definiteness. Their best model reaches 92.20 F1 on Bulgarian, surpassing the previous 89.40 state of the art without using gazetteers or hand-written rules. If this is right, NER systems for grammatically rich languages should treat grammar tags as first-class input rather than optional extras.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the grammatical vector: a one-hot encoding of part-of-speech and morphological features concatenated to the word embedding and character embedding before the Bi-LSTM. The paper varies the POS vector granularity, from the full set of eleven tags down to coarse groupings that separate nouns, adjectives, and hybrid tags from prepositions and from everything else, and adds one-hot morphological vectors for gender, number, and definiteness. This vector lets the model see discrete linguistic categories that distributional embeddings do not make explicit, and the CRF at the output layer then enforces globally consistent tag assignments. The cumulative experiments isolate which part of the gain each vector contributes.

What would settle it

Rerun the best model on the same test sentences with POS and morphological tags produced by an automatic tagger, and confirm the test split is identical to the one used for the 89.40 baseline; if F1 drops substantially below 92.20 or the old system matches this split, the claimed improvement is not a controlled, deployment-ready result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a Bi-LSTM-CRF named entity recognizer—a standard neural architecture that combines word and character embeddings with a conditional random field decoder—can be substantially improved for Bulgarian by concatenating a grammatical vector to each word's representation. Using the BulTreeBank's positional morphosyntactic tags, the authors test POS vectors at several granularities plus morphological vectors for gender, number, and definiteness. They find that adding the full set of eleven POS tags raises F1 from 86.44 to 90.96, that adding morphological features contributes only 0.07 points on top of that, and that adding a coarse three-way POS distinction—nouns, adjectives, and hybrid family-name/adjective forms versus prepositions versus everything else—brings the final F1 to 92.20. Against the previous Bulgarian state of the art of 89.40, this is a 2.80-point absolute gain with no external resources. The authors interpret this as evidence that word and character embeddings alone do not supply enough grammatical information for morphologically rich languages, and that explicit coarse-grained POS information is the most cost-effective supplement.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison assumes that the BulTreeBank test split used for the 92.20 result is exactly the split used for the reported 89.40 baseline, and that the model receives gold POS and morphological tags rather than predicted ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Bulgarian and similar morphologically rich languages, adding a coarse POS tag vector to a Bi-LSTM-CRF is worth roughly 4.5 F1 points over word-plus-character input (86.44 to 90.96), a gain far larger than detailed morphology provides.
  • The best configuration combines two POS granularities at once (POS11 with POS3), so POS should be treated as a family of complementary signals rather than a single feature.
  • Because the improvement comes without gazetteers or rules, grammar-aware neural NER can replace feature-engineered CRFs for morphologically rich languages.
  • The confusion matrix shows that organizations remain the hardest category (84.70 F1) and are often named after persons, indicating where errors concentrate even with grammar features.
  • The method is expected to transfer to other Slavic and Romance languages with rich morphological systems, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not report what happens when POS and morphological tags come from an automatic tagger instead of gold treebank annotations; a deployed system would likely see a smaller gain because tagger errors would propagate into entity decisions.
  • The findings imply that subword and word embeddings trained on morphologically rich corpora do not fully encode grammatical categories, so explicit discrete signals are a cheap addition that predicts similar gains for other analytic Slavic languages and smaller gains where capitalization or word order already reveal grammar.
  • The error analysis identifies loanwords as a major failure source; a testable extension is to use transliteration or loanword-specific input features rather than gazetteers, which the authors found ineffective.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper augments the LSTM-CRF architecture of Lample et al. (2016) with gold part-of-speech and morphological feature vectors for Bulgarian named entity recognition. Using a BulTreeBank-derived dataset, it reports a cumulative F1 gain from a word+character baseline of 86.44 to a final F1 of 92.20 with POS11, morphological features, and coarse POS3 (Table 7). The paper claims that POS information contributes more than detailed morphology, that coarse-grained POS tags are sufficient, and that the resulting model improves over the previous Bulgarian state of the art of 89.40 (Table 5). The contribution is presented as an architecture for morphologically rich languages, with data and code released.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust and not an artifact of evaluation choices, the paper is a useful contribution to NER for morphologically rich languages. Its cumulative ablation in Table 7 is a reasonable way to attribute improvements, and the release of data and code supports reproducibility. However, the central claims currently rest on several load-bearing assumptions that are not verified: the special BulTreeBank H tag may directly encode person-name membership, the comparison with the previous state of the art does not document split identity, the POS-versus-morphology comparison is not tested directly, and the evaluations use gold POS/morphological tags. These issues are fixable within the scope of the paper, but they need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 4, Table 7] The POS11 input includes the BulTreeBank H ('hybrid') tag, which the paper itself defines as covering family names and name adjectives and illustrates with the family name 'Вълчев'. Since all experiments use gold POS vectors, the jump from 86.44 to 90.96 when POS11 is added includes a direct entity-specific channel: the H tag is nearly a named-entity label for a large fraction of person names. The coarse POS3 also merges H with A and N into 'ANH', so the conclusion that 'NER needs only coarse-grained POS tags' is confounded. Please add an ablation in which H is collapsed into A or N (or otherwise removed) and report whether the POS11 and POS3 gains survive; without this, the central claim is not cleanly supported.
  2. [§5.2, Table 5] The headline comparison of 92.20 versus 89.40 assumes that the train/dev/test split used here is identical to the split used by Georgiev et al. (2009). Section 3 describes the BulTreeBank-derived corpus but never states how the split was created or that it matches the earlier CRF work. If the test sets differ, the state-of-the-art comparison is not controlled. Please document the split (random seed, provenance, or exact file boundaries) and, if possible, rerun the baseline on the original split or report both comparisons.
  3. [§5.2, Tables 3 and 7] The central claim that POS information contributes more than morphological information is not directly tested. Morphological features are only added on top of POS11 (line 6, +0.07 F1), so the 4.5-point gain of POS11 over the character baseline is not compared with the gain of the morphological vector over the same baseline. Moreover, all POS configurations appear to be selected from test-set F1, with no dev-set validation and no repeated runs or error bars; differences of 0.1–1.0 F1 between configurations in Table 3 may be within run-to-run noise. Please report dev/test results for all configurations, run multiple seeds, and include a morphology-alone condition and a direct POS-versus-morphology comparison.
  4. [§3, §4, §5.2] All experiments use gold POS and morphological tags as inputs at test time. Since a deployed NER system would have to use predicted tags, the practical claim that 'access to POS information' yields gains of 4+ points is an upper bound. Please either run the final configuration with an automatic POS/morphological tagger, or explicitly qualify the contribution as an analysis of gold-annotation value rather than a deployable pipeline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3 caption and header] The caption says 'Evaluation results for Bulgarian POS tagging,' but the task is named entity recognition; the table also lacks group headers for the 'No Morphology' and 'With Morphology' columns, and 'Morpholofy' is a typo.
  2. [§5.1] The text says 'we set the batch size to 20 and the dropout to 2'; a dropout value of 2 is not a valid probability, and this is likely a typo for 0.2. Please clarify, as this affects reproducibility.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The definitions of POS3+POS11 and POS4+POS11 in the caption are described as groupings ('POS11 vs. ANHR vs. REST' and 'POS11 vs. ANH vs. REST'), which does not match the concatenation encoding implied by Table 7. Please clarify how the combined vectors are constructed.
  4. [§5.2] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'sing regular expressions' (should be 'using'), 'descibed', 'resulst', and 'ar emarked'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [§5.1] The reference to Wilson et al. (2017) is cited for tuning the initial learning rate, but the sentence structure makes the citation's role unclear; please integrate it more cleanly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Table 7's POS gain is partially circular: the POS11 input contains a gold 'H' tag defined as family names, a direct component of the target PER labels.

  1. self definitional [Section 4 'POS Vectors'; Section 5.2, Tables 3, 4 and 7]
    "The Hybrid tag (H) is special in the tagset. It refers to both family names and name adjectives. Bulgarian family names (as other Slavic ones) are proper names, but morphologically they behave like adjectives due to their adjectival origin. ... POS11 = all part of speech tags separately ... POS3 "ANH" vs. "R" vs. REST"

    The central empirical claim is that access to POS information contributes more than detailed morphology, supported by Table 7's jump from 86.44 (word+char) to 90.96 with POS11 and by the final 92.20 with POS3. However, POS11 is a one-hot vector over the eleven BulTreeBank POS tags, and one of those tags, H, is defined by the paper itself as covering family names and name adjectives. Table 4 shows the family name 'Вълчев' receiving gold tag H. Because evaluation uses gold POS vectors, the model is given a direct indicator that a token is a family-name component, i.e., a gold hint for the target PER labels. The measured POS gain is therefore not a clean morpho-syntactic signal: part of it is the model reading a target-encoded feature.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical LSTM-CRF comparison, not a mathematical derivation, and much of it is self-contained: the base architecture comes from Lample et al. (2016), FastText embeddings are external, and the ablation ladder in Table 7 is measured on a released dataset. The comparison to Georgiev et al. (2009) involves overlapping authors (Nakov, Osenova, Simov) and the paper does not demonstrate the test split is identical, but that is a comparability caveat, not circularity. The one substantive circularity is the H tag: since the POS input is defined to include a category whose prototypical referents are family names, the large POS11 gain is partly the model being handed gold target information. This makes the central POS-over-morphology claim partially circular; removing H or evaluating with predicted POS would be needed to support the abstract's conclusion. Score 6 reflects partial, not total, circularity; the word/character-only baseline and other POS groups still carry independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; it combines existing linguistic tags with standard neural components. The main external dependencies are the BulTreeBank annotations, the FastText embeddings, and the previously reported Georgiev et al. baseline. The most consequential implicit premises are the correctness and availability of gold POS/morphological tags and the comparability of the data split with the prior state of the art.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial learning rate and per-epoch decay = initial 0.001, decay value not reported
    Section 5.1 states that tuning the learning rate and decay yields sizeable improvements; the exact decay value is not given and it is unclear whether it was tuned on the dev set.
  • Dropout rate = reported as '2' in the text, presumably 0.2
    Section 5.1 says 'we set the batch size to 20 and the dropout to 2'; this is likely a typo for 0.2, and the value is a hyperparameter that affects results.
  • LSTM hidden dimensions and layer count = not specified
    Section 4 says the architecture follows Lample et al. (2016), but the exact hidden sizes used in the experiments are not given; these are free choices that affect performance.
  • POS granularity combination = POS3+POS11+Morph, selected on test with F1 92.20
    Section 5.2 and Table 3 test seven POS configurations and report the best one; the selection of the best combination appears to be based on test-set performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BulTreeBank morphosyntactic annotation and the derived BIO tags are correct and consistently applied.
    Section 3 states the dataset inherited the morphosyntactic annotation from the treebank; the model's POS and morphological vectors are built directly from these tags. Errors in the tags would be treated as input features and could distort the comparison.
  • domain assumption The train/dev/test split is fixed and, for the state-of-the-art comparison, identical to the split used by Georgiev et al. (2009).
    Section 5.2 Table 5 compares F1 92.20 to 89.40; without a matched split the comparison is not valid. The paper does not document the split construction.
  • domain assumption Gold POS and morphological tags are available at inference time, and using predicted tags would not materially change the ranking of models.
    Section 4 uses grammatical vectors as input but never experiments with a POS tagger or reports the effect of tagger errors.
  • domain assumption FastText Bulgarian word embeddings provide a reasonable word representation, and no contextual embeddings are needed for the comparison.
    Section 4 chooses FastText and explicitly defers BERT and ELMo to future work; a stronger embedding baseline might change the measured gain from explicit features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Morpho-Syntactically Informed LSTM-CRF Model for Named Entity Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CUBBAJMW

@misc{pith2026190810261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Morpho-Syntactically Informed LSTM-CRF Model for Named Entity Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CUBBAJMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10261}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a morphologically informed model for named entity recognition, which is based on LSTM-CRF architecture and combines word embeddings, Bi-LSTM character embeddings, part-of-speech (POS) tags, and morphological information. While previous work has focused on learning from raw word input, using word and character embeddings only, we show that for morphologically rich languages, such as Bulgarian, access to POS information contributes more to the performance gains than the detailed morphological information. Thus, we show that named entity recognition needs only coarse-grained POS tags, but at the same time it can benefit from simultaneously using some POS information of different granularity. Our evaluation results over a standard dataset show sizable improvements over the state-of-the-art for Bulgarian NER.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full input vector representation with concatenation of word embeddings, character em￾beddings, and morphological features. Another thing worth mentioning is that the nouns, adjectives and hybrid tags share some com￾mon features. This information appears to be very useful for recognizing the more specific types of named entities. Note that the existence of a prepo￾sition in a sequence can distinguish some further pat… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Alan Akbik, Tanja Bergmann, and Roland Vollgraf. 2019. Pooled contextualized embeddings for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies\/ . Minneapolis, MN, USA, NAACL-HLT '19, pages 724--728

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Appelt, Jerry R

    Douglas E. Appelt, Jerry R. Hobbs, John Bear, David Israel, Megumi Kameyama, David Martin, Karen Myers, and Mabry Tyson. 1995. SRI international FASTUS system: MUC -6 test results and analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding\/ . Columbia, MD, USA, MUC6 '95, pages 237--248

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics\/ 5:135--146

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Chiu and Eric Nichols

    Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM - CNN s. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics\/ 4:357--370

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics\/ . Minneapolis, MN, USA, NAACL-HLT '2019, pages 4171--4186

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    George Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark Przybocki, Lance Ramshaw, Stephanie Strassel, and Ralph Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction ( ACE ) program -- tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation\/ . Lisbon, Portugal, LREC '04

    work page 2004

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Georgi Georgiev, Preslav Nakov, Kuzman Ganchev, Petya Osenova, and Kiril Simov. 2009. Feature-rich named entity recognition for B ulgarian using conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Adcances in Natural Language Processing\/ . Boro...

    2009

  2. [10]

    Dan Gillick, Cliff Brunk, Oriol Vinyals, and Amarnag Subramanya. 2016. Multilingual language processing from bytes. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies\/ . San Diego, ...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Ralph Grishman and Beth Sundheim. 1996. Message understanding conference-6: A brief history. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics\/ . Copenhagen, Denmark, COLING '96, pages 466--471

    1996

  4. [12]

    Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

    Geoffrey E. Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2012. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. CoRR\/ abs/1207.0580

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR\/ abs/1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    John Lafferty. 2001. Conditional R andom F ields: P robabilistic M odels for S egmenting and L abeling S equence D ata. In Proceedings of the 18th I nternational C onference on M achine L earning\/ . Morgan Kaufmann, ICML '01, pages 282--289

    2001

  7. [15]

    Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lang...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. 2019. Cross-lingual language model pretraining. CoRR\/ abs/1901.07291

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Arkhipov, and Mikhail S

    The Anh Le, Mikhail Y. Arkhipov, and Mikhail S. Burtsev. 2018. Application of a hybrid Bi-LSTM-CRF model to the task of R ussian named entity recognition. In Andrey Filchenkov, Lidia Pivovarova, and Jan Z i z ka, editors, Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language\/ . Spring...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Wang Ling, Chris Dyer, Alan W Black, Isabel Trancoso, Ram \'o n Fermandez, Silvio Amir, Lu \' s Marujo, and Tiago Lu \' s. 2015. Finding function in form: Compositional character models for open vocabulary word representation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical...

    2015

  11. [19]

    Xiaodong Liu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2019 a . Improving multi-task deep neural networks via knowledge distillation for natural language understanding. CoRR\/ abs/1904.09482

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Xiaodong Liu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2019 b . Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding. CoRR\/ abs/1901.11504

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019 c . RoBERTa : A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR\/ abs/1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. CoRR\/ abs/1301.3781

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alexandre Passos, Vineet Kumar, and Andrew McCallum. 2014. Lexicon infused phrase embeddings for named entity resolution. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning\/ . Ann Arbor, MI, USA, CoNLL '14, pages 78--86

    2014

  16. [24]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe : Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing\/ . Doha, Qatar, EMNLP '14, pages 1532--1543

    2014

  17. [25]

    Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Jakub Piskorski, Peter Homola, Ma gorzata Marciniak, Agnieszka Mykowiecka, Adam Przepi \'o rkowski, and Marcin Woli \' n ski. 2004. Information extraction for P olish using the SProUT platform. In Mieczys aw A. K opotek, S awomir T. Wierzcho \' n , and Krzysztof Trojanowski, e...

    2004

  19. [27]

    Jakub Piskorski, Laska Laskova, Micha Marci \'n czuk, Lidia Pivovarova, Pavel P r ib \'a n , Josef Steinberger, and Roman Yangarber. 2019. The second cross-lingual challenge on recognition, normalization, classification, and linking of named entities across S lavic languages. ...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Jakub Piskorski, Lidia Pivovarova, Jan S najder, Josef Steinberger, and Roman Yangarber. 2017. The first cross-lingual challenge on recognition, normalization, and matching of named entities in S lavic languages. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on B alto- S lavic Natural La...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Ana-Maria Popescu and Oren Etzioni. 2005. Extracting product features and opinions from reviews. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing\/ . Vancouver, Canada, EMNLP '05, pages 339--346

    2005

  22. [30]

    Senior, and Fran c oise Beaufays

    Hasim Sak, Andrew W. Senior, and Fran c oise Beaufays. 2014. Long short-term memory based recurrent neural network architectures for large vocabulary speech recognition. CoRR\/ abs/1402.1128

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Iman Saleh, Scott Cyphers, Jim Glass, Shafiq Joty, Llu\' i s M\` a rquez, Alessandro Moschitti, and Preslav Nakov. 2014. A study of using syntactic and semantic structures for concept segmentation and labeling. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computation...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Kiril Simov, Petya Osenova, Alexander Simov, and Milen Kouylekov. 2004 a . Design and implementation of the B ulgarian HPSG -based treebank. In Journal of Research on Language and Computation, Special Issue\/ . Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 495--522

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kiril Simov, Petya Osenova, and Milena Slavcheva. 2004 b . BTB-TR03 : Bul T ree B ank M orphosyntactic T agset. Bul T ree B ank P roject, IICT-BAS

    2004

  26. [34]

    Jana Strakov \'a , Milan Straka, and Jan Haji c . 2013. A new state-of-the-art C zech named entity recognizer. In Ivan Habernal and V \'a clav Matou s ek, editors, Text, Speech, and Dialogue\/ . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pages 68--75

    2013

  27. [35]

    Emma Strubell, Patrick Verga, David Belanger, and Andrew McCallum. 2017. Fast and accurate entity recognition with iterated dilated convolutions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing\/ . Copenhagen, Denmark, EMNLP '17, pages 2670--2680

    2017

  28. [36]

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. ERNIE 2.0: A continual pre-training framework for language understanding. CoRR\/ abs/1907.12412

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2012. An introduction to conditional random fields. Found. Trends Mach. Learn.\/ 4(4):267--373

    2012

  30. [38]

    Tjong Kim Sang

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. Introduction to the CoNLL-2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning\/ . Taipei, Taiwan, COLING '02, pages 1--4

    2002

  31. [39]

    Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL -2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning\/ . Edmonton, Canada, CoNLL '03, pages 142--147

    2003

  32. [40]

    Wilson, Rebecca Roelofs, Mitchell Stern, Nati Srebro, and Benjamin Recht

    Ashia C. Wilson, Rebecca Roelofs, Mitchell Stern, Nati Srebro, and Benjamin Recht. 2017. The marginal value of adaptive gradient methods in machine learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems\/ . Long Beach, CA, USA, NIPS '17, pages 4151--4161

    2017

  33. [41]

    Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V

    Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. XLNet : Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. CoRR\/ abs/1906.08237

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. Named entity recognition using an HMM -based chunk tagger. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics\/ . Philadelphia, PA, USA, ACL '02, pages 473--480

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.