An Empirical Comparison of Parsing Methods for Stanford Dependencies
Table 3: Effects of POS on SD parsing performance. Numerals in the leftmost column refer to rows in Table 1.
['[EMPTY]', 'POS Tags', 'Parser', 'Basic PTB §22', 'Basic PTB §22', 'Basic PTB §23', 'Basic PTB §23', 'CCprocessed PTB §22', 'CCprocessed PTB §22', 'CCprocessed PTB §23', 'CCprocessed PTB §23']
First, we consider how these parsers perform with gold-standard POS tags provided at test time. As expected, all methods perform better with better POS tags. More interestingly, the gap between the Berkeley parser and Full TurboParser is essentially gone, with each showing a slight lead on one of the two datasets.