Table 4 Performance of CRF and BiLSTM-CRF on CWS and POS tagging for clinical text on our corpus
From: A fine-grained Chinese word segmentation and part-of-speech tagging corpus for clinical text
Task | Method | P(%) | R(%) | F(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWS | CRF | 96.75 | 97.14 | 96.94 | |
BiLSTM-CRF | 96.56 | 96.66 | 96.61 | ||
CWS&POS tagging | CWS | CRF | 97.18 | 96.73 | 96.95 |
BiLSTM-CRF | 96.86 | 96.76 | 96.81 | ||
POS tagging | CRF | 95.34 | 94.89 | 95.11 | |
BiLSTM-CRF | 94.81 | 94.72 | 94.77 | ||