Urdu part of speech tagging using conditional random fields

• Abbas, Q. (2014). Semi-semantic part of speech annotation and evaluation. In Proceeding of the 8th linguistic annotation workshop, Dublin, Ireland, August 23–24 2014 (pp. 75–81).

• Adeeba, F., & Hussain, S. (2011). Experiences in building the Urdu WordNet. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop on Asian language resources collocated with IJCNLP, Chiang Mai, Thailand (pp. 31–35).

• Ahmed, T., & Hautli, A. (2011). A first approach towards an Urdu WordNet. Linguistics and Literature Review, 1(1), 1–14.

  Google Scholar 

• Akram, Q.-U.-A., Naseer, A., & Hussain, S. (2009). Assas-band, an affix-exception-list based Urdu stemmer. In The 7th workshop on Asian language resources (pp. 40–46). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Anwar, W., Wang, X., Li, L., & Wang, X.-L. (2007). A statistical based part of speech tagger for Urdu language. In International conference on machine learning and cybernetics (Vol. 6, pp. 3418–3424). IEEE.

• Anwar, W., Wang, X., & Wang, X.-L. (2006). A survey of automatic Urdu language processing. In International conference on machine learning and cybernetics (pp. 4489–4494). IEEE.

• Atwell, E. S. (2008). Development of tag sets for part-of-speech tagging. In Anke Lüdeling (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 501–526). Walter de Gruyter.

• Benajiba, Y., & Rosso, P. (2008). Arabic named entity recognition using conditional random fields. In Proceedings of workshop on HLT & NLP within the Arabic World, LREC (Vol. 8, pp. 143–153). Citeseer.

• Biemann, C. (2006). Unsupervised part-of-speech tagging employing efficient graph clustering. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: student research workshop (pp. 7–12). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Bilgin, M., & Amasyali, M. F. (2016). Semantic role labeling with relative clauses. International Journal of Electronics, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, 6(2), 1165–1175.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brill, E. (1992). A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In Proceedings of the workshop on speech and natural language (pp. 112–116). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Brill, E. (1993). Automatic grammar induction and parsing free text: A transformation-based approach. In Proceedings of the workshop on human language technology (pp. 237–242). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Brill, E. (1994a). A report of recent progress in transformation-based error-driven learning. In Proceedings of the workshop on human language technology (pp. 256–261). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Brill, E. (1994b). Some advances in rule-based part of speech tagging. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle, WA (pp. 722–727).

• Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21(4), 543–565.

  Google Scholar 

• Daniel, J., & James, H. (2009). Speech and Language processing: An introduction to natural language processing. In Computational linguistics and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

• Daud, A., Khan, W., & Che, D. (2016). Urdu language processing: A survey. Artificial Intelligence Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9482-x.

  Google Scholar 

• Giménez, J., & Marquez, L. (2004). SVMTool: A general POS tagger generator based on support vector machines. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on language resources and evaluation. Citeseer.

• Graça, J. V., Ganchev, K., Coheur, L., Pereira, F., & Taskar, B. (2011). Controlling complexity in part-of-speech induction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 41, 527–551.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Haq, M. A. (1987). اردو صرف و نخو: Amjuman-e-Taraqqi Urdu (Hind) New Delhi.

• Hardie, A. (2003). Developing a tagset for automated part-of-speech tagging in Urdu. In The Corpus linguistics 2003 conference. UCREL Technical Papers Volume 16. Department of Linguistics, Lancaster University.

• Hoefel, G., & Elkan, C. (2008). Learning a two-stage SVM/CRF sequence classifier. In The 17th ACM conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 271–278). ACM.

• Husain, M. S., Ahamad, F., & Khalid, S. (2013). A language independent approach to develop Urdu stemmer. In: Meghanathan N., Nagamalai D., Chaki N. (eds) Advances in Computing and Information Technology. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 178. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

• Ijaz, M., & Hussain, S. (2007). Corpus based Urdu lexicon development. In Proceedings of the conference on language technology (CLT07), University of Peshawar, Pakistan (Vol. 73).

• Jawaid, B., Kamran, A., & Bojar, O. (2014). A tagged Corpus and a tagger for Urdu. In LREC (pp. 2938–2943).

• Jawaid, B., & Ondřej, B. (2012). Tagger voting for Urdu. In 24th international conference on computational linguistics (p. 135). Citeseer.

• Khan, W., Daud, A., Nasir, J. A., & Amjad, T. (2016a). A survey on the state-of-the-art machine learning models in the context of NLP. Kuwait Journal of Science, 43(4), 66–84.

  Google Scholar 

• Khan, W., Daud, A., Nasir, J. A., & Amjad, T. (2016b). Urdu named entity dataset for Urdu named entity recognition task. In 6th International conference on language & technology (pp. 51–55).

• Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F. C. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Paper presented at the eighteenth international conference on machine learning, ICML.

• Maimaiti, M., Wumaier, A., Abiderexiti, K., & Yibulayin, T. (2017). Bidirectional long short-term memory network with a conditional random field layer for Uyghur part-of-speech tagging. Information, 8(4), 157.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Marcus, M. P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Santorini, B. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.

  Google Scholar 

• Muaz, A., Ali, A., & Hussain, S. (2009). Analysis and development of Urdu POS tagged corpus. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on Asian language resources (pp. 24–29). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Mukund, S. (2012). An NLP framework for non-topical text analysis in Urdu—A resource poor language. ProQuest LLC., Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

• Mukund, S., Srihari, R., & Peterson, E. (2010). An information-extraction system for Urdu—A resource-poor language. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP), 9(4), 1–43.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Naz, F., Anwar, W., Bajwa, U. I., & Munir, E. U. (2012). Urdu part of speech tagging using transformation based error driven learning. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(3), 437–448.

  Google Scholar 

• Phuong, N. D., & Chau, V. T. N. (2016). Automatic de-identification of medical records with a multilevel hybrid semi-supervised learning approach. In Computing & communication technologies, research, innovation, and vision for the future (RIVF), 2016 IEEE RIVF international conference on (pp. 43–48). IEEE.

• Platts, J. T. (1909). A grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu language. London: WH Allen.

  Google Scholar 

• Raymond, C., & Riccardi, G. (2007). Generative and discriminative algorithms for spoken language understanding. In INTERSPEECH (pp. 1605–1608).

• Roth, D., & Zelenko, D. (1998). Part of speech tagging using a network of linear separators. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computational linguistics—Volume 2 (pp. 1136–1142). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Saha, S. K., Sarkar, S., & Mitra, P. (2008). A hybrid feature set based maximum entropy Hindi named entity recognition. In IJCNLP (pp. 343–349).

• Sajjad, H. (2007). Statistical part of speech tagger for Urdu. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences. Lahore, Pakistan.

• Sajjad, H., & Schmid, H. (2009). Tagging Urdu text with parts of speech: A tagger comparison. In Proceedings of the 12th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 692–700). Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Schmidt, R. L. (1999). Urdu: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge Publishing.

• Sharjeel, M., Nawab, R. M. A., & Rayson, P. (2017). COUNTER: Corpus of Urdu news text reuse. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3), 777–803.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Silfverberg, M., Ruokolainen, T., Linden, K., & Kurimo, M. (2014). Part-of-speech tagging using conditional random fields: Exploiting sub-label dependencies for improved accuracy. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers) 2014, Baltimore, Maryland.

• Song, S., Zhang, N., & Huang, H. (2017). Named entity recognition based on conditional random fields. Cluster Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1146-3

• Tafseer, A., Urooj, S., Hussain, S., Mustafa, A., Parveen, R., Adeeba, F., et al. (2015). The CLE Urdu POS tagset. In LREC 2014, ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 2920–2925).

• Yin, Y., Wei, F., Dong, L., Xu, K., Zhang, M., & Zhou, M. (2016). Unsupervised word and dependency path embeddings for aspect term extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07843.

• Žitnik, S., Šubelj, L., & Bajec, M. (2014). SkipCor: Skip-mention coreference resolution using linear-chain conditional random fields. PLoS ONE, 9(6), 1–14.

  Google Scholar 

Download references