Tag Archives: nlp

Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK Part 4 – Brill Tagger vs Classifier Taggers

In previous installments on part-of-speech tagging, we saw that a Brill Tagger provides significant accuracy improvements over the Ngram Taggers combined with Regex and Affix Tagging.

With the latest 2.0 beta releases (2.0b8 as of this writing), NLTK has included a ClassifierBasedTagger as well as a pre-trained tagger used by the nltk.tag.pos_tag method. Based on the name, then pre-trained tagger appears to be a ClassifierBasedTagger trained on the treebank corpus using a MaxentClassifier. So let’s see how a classifier tagger compares to the brill tagger.

NLTK Training Sets

For the brown corpus, I trained on 2/3 of the reviews, lore, and romance categories, and tested against the remaining 1/3. For conll2000, I used the standard train.txt vs test.txt. And for treebank, I again used a 2/3 vs 1/3 split.

import itertools
from nltk.corpus import brown, conll2000, treebank

brown_reviews = brown.tagged_sents(categories=['reviews'])
brown_reviews_cutoff = len(brown_reviews) * 2 / 3
brown_lore = brown.tagged_sents(categories=['lore'])
brown_lore_cutoff = len(brown_lore) * 2 / 3
brown_romance = brown.tagged_sents(categories=['romance'])
brown_romance_cutoff = len(brown_romance) * 2 / 3

brown_train = list(itertools.chain(brown_reviews[:brown_reviews_cutoff],
	brown_lore[:brown_lore_cutoff], brown_romance[:brown_romance_cutoff]))
brown_test = list(itertools.chain(brown_reviews[brown_reviews_cutoff:],
	brown_lore[brown_lore_cutoff:], brown_romance[brown_romance_cutoff:]))

conll_train = conll2000.tagged_sents('train.txt')
conll_test = conll2000.tagged_sents('test.txt')

treebank_cutoff = len(treebank.tagged_sents()) * 2 / 3
treebank_train = treebank.tagged_sents()[:treebank_cutoff]
treebank_test = treebank.tagged_sents()[treebank_cutoff:]

Naive Bayes Classifier Taggers

There are 3 new taggers referenced below:

  • cpos is an instance of ClassifierBasedPOSTagger using the default NaiveBayesClassifier. It was trained by doing ClassifierBasedPOSTagger(train=train_sents)
  • craubt is like cpos, but has the raubt tagger from part 2 as a backoff tagger by doing ClassifierBasedPOSTagger(train=train_sents, backoff=raubt)
  • bcpos is a BrillTagger using cpos as its initial tagger instead of raubt.

The raubt tagger is the same as from part 2, and braubt is from part 3.

postag is NLTK’s pre-trained tagger used by the pos_tag function. It can be loaded using nltk.data.load(nltk.tag._POS_TAGGER).

Accuracy Evaluation

Tagger accuracy was determined by calling the evaluate method with the test set on each trained tagger. Here are the results:

brill vs classifier tagger accuracy chart


The above results are quite interesting, and lead to a few conclusions:

  1. Training data is hugely significant when it comes to accuracy. This is why postag takes a huge nose dive on brown, while at the same time can get near 100% accuracy on treebank.
  2. A ClassifierBasedPOSTagger does not need a backoff tagger, since cpos accuracy is exactly the same as for craubt across all corpora.
  3. The ClassifierBasedPOSTagger is not necessarily more accurate than the bcraubt tagger from part 3 (at least with the default feature detector). It also takes much longer to train and tag (more details below) and so may not be worth the tradeoff in efficiency.
  4. Using brill tagger will nearly always increase the accuracy of your initial tagger, but not by much.

I was also surprised at how much more accurate postag was compared to cpos. Thinking that postag was probably trained on the full treebank corpus, I did the same, and re-evaluated:

cpos = ClassifierBasedPOSTagger(train=treebank.tagged_sents())

The result was 98.08% accuracy. So the remaining 2% difference must be due to the MaxentClassifier being more accurate than the naive bayes classifier, and/or the use of a different feature detector. I tried again with classifier_builder=MaxentClassifier.train and only got to 98.4% accuracy. So I can only conclude that a different feature detector is used. Hopefully the NLTK leaders will publish the training method so we can all know for sure.

Classification Efficiency

On the nltk-users list, there was a question about which tagger is the most computationaly economic. I can’t tell you the right answer, but I can definitely say that ClassifierBasedPOSTagger is the wrong answer. During accuracy evaluation, I noticed that the cpos tagger took a lot longer than raubt or braubt. So I ran timeit on the tag method of each tagger, and got the following results:

Tagger secs/pass
raubt 0.00005
braubt 0.00009
cpos 0.02219
bcpos 0.02259
postag 0.01241

This was run with python 2.6.4 on an Athlon 64 Dual Core 4600+ with 3G RAM, but the important thing is the relative times. braubt is over 246 times faster than cpos! To put it another way, braubt can process over 66666 words/sec, where cpos can only do 270 words/sec and postag only 483 words/sec. So the lesson is: do not use a classifier based tagger if speed is an issue.

Here’s the code for timing postag. You can do the same thing for any other pickled tagger by replacing nltk.tag._POS_TAGGER with a nltk.data accessible path with a .pickle suffix for the load method.

import nltk, timeit
text = nltk.word_tokenize('And now for something completely different')
setup = 'import nltk.data, nltk.tag; tagger = nltk.data.load(nltk.tag._POS_TAGGER)'
t = timeit.Timer('tagger.tag(%s)' % text, setup)
print 'timing postag 1000 times'
spent = t.timeit(number=1000)
print 'took %.5f secs/pass' % (spent / 1000)

File Size

There’s also a significant difference in the file size of the pickled taggers (trained on treebank):

Tagger Size
raubt 272K
braubt 273K
cpos 3.8M
bcpos 3.8M
postag 8.2M


I think there’s a lot of room for experimentation with classifier based taggers and their feature detectors. But if speed is an issue for you, don’t even bother. In that case, stick with a simpler tagger that’s nearly as accurate and orders of magnitude faster.

NLTK Classifier Based Chunker Accuracy

The NLTK Book has been updated with an explanation of how to train a classifier based chunker, and I wanted to compare it’s accuracy versus my previous tagger based chunker.

Tag Chunker

I already covered how to train a tagger based chunker, with the the discovery that a UnigramBigram TagChunker is the narrow favorite. I’ll use this Unigram-Bigram Chunker as a baseline for comparison below.

Classifier Chunker

A Classifier based Chunker uses a classifier such as the MaxentClassifier to determine which IOB chunk tags to use. It’s very similar to the TagChunker in that the Chunker class is really a wrapper around a Classifier based part-of-speech tagger. And both are trainable alternatives to a regular expression parser. So first we need to create a ClassifierTagger, and then we can wrap it with a ClassifierChunker.

Classifier Tagger

The ClassifierTagger below is an abstracted version of what’s described in the Information Extraction chapter of the NLTK Book. It should theoretically work with any feature extractor and classifier class when created with the train classmethod. The kwargs are passed to the classifier constructor.

from nltk.tag import TaggerI, untag

class ClassifierTagger(TaggerI):
	'''Abstracted from "Training Classifier-Based Chunkers" section of
	def __init__(self, feature_extractor, classifier):
		self.feature_extractor = feature_extractor
		self.classifier = classifier

	def tag(self, sent):
		history = []

		for i, word in enumerate(sent):
			featureset = self.feature_extractor(sent, i, history)
			tag = self.classifier.classify(featureset)

		return zip(sent, history)

	def train(cls, train_sents, feature_extractor, classifier_cls, **kwargs):
		train_set = []

		for tagged_sent in train_sents:
			untagged_sent = untag(tagged_sent)
			history = []

			for i, (word, tag) in enumerate(tagged_sent):
				featureset = feature_extractor(untagged_sent, i, history)
				train_set.append((featureset, tag))

		classifier = classifier_cls.train(train_set, **kwargs)
		return cls(feature_extractor, classifier)

Classifier Chunker

The ClassifierChunker is a thin wrapper around the ClassifierTagger that converts between tagged tuples and parse trees. args and kwargs in __init__ are passed in to ClassifierTagger.train().

from nltk.chunk import ChunkParserI, tree2conlltags, conlltags2tree

class ClassifierChunker(nltk.chunk.ChunkParserI):
	def __init__(self, train_sents, *args, **kwargs):
		tag_sents = [tree2conlltags(sent) for sent in train_sents]
		train_chunks = [[((w,t),c) for (w,t,c) in sent] for sent in tag_sents]
		self.tagger = ClassifierTagger.train(train_chunks, *args, **kwargs)

	def parse(self, tagged_sent):
		if not tagged_sent: return None
		chunks = self.tagger.tag(tagged_sent)
		return conlltags2tree([(w,t,c) for ((w,t),c) in chunks])

Feature Extractors

Classifiers work on featuresets, which are created with feature extraction functions. Below are the feature extractors I evaluated, partly copied from the NLTK Book.

def pos(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]
	return {'pos': pos}

def pos_word(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]
	return {'pos': pos, 'word': word}

def prev_pos(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == 0:
		prevword, prevpos = '<START>', '<START>'
		prevword, prevpos = sent[i-1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'prevpos': prevpos}

def prev_pos_word(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == 0:
		prevword, prevpos = '<START>', '<START>'
		prevword, prevpos = sent[i-1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'prevpos': prevpos, 'word': word}

def next_pos(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == len(sent) - 1:
		nextword, nextpos = '<END>', '<END>'
		nextword, nextpos = sent[i+1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'nextpos': nextpos}

def next_pos_word(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == len(sent) - 1:
		nextword, nextpos = '<END>', '<END>'
		nextword, nextpos = sent[i+1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'nextpos': nextpos, 'word': word}

def prev_next_pos(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == 0:
		prevword, prevpos = '<START>', '<START>'
		prevword, prevpos = sent[i-1]

	if i == len(sent) - 1:
		nextword, nextpos = '<END>', '<END>'
		nextword, nextpos = sent[i+1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'nextpos': nextpos, 'prevpos': prevpos}

def prev_next_pos_word(sent, i, history):
	word, pos = sent[i]

	if i == 0:
		prevword, prevpos = '<START>', '<START>'
		prevword, prevpos = sent[i-1]

	if i == len(sent) - 1:
		nextword, nextpos = '<END>', '<END>'
		nextword, nextpos = sent[i+1]

	return {'pos': pos, 'nextpos': nextpos, 'word': word, 'prevpos': prevpos}


Now that we have all the pieces, we can put them together with training.

NOTE: training the classifier takes a long time. If you want to reduce the time, you can increase min_lldelta or decrease max_iter, but you risk reducing the accuracy. Also note that the MaxentClassifier will sometimes produce nan for the log likelihood (I’m guessing this is a divide-by-zero error somewhere). If you hit Ctrl-C once at this point, you can stop the training and continue.

from nltk.corpus import conll2000
from nltk.classify import MaxentClassifier

train_sents = conll2000.chunked_sents('train.txt')
# featx is one of the feature extractors defined above
chunker = ClassifierChunker(train_sents, featx, MaxentClassifier,
	min_lldelta=0.01, max_iter=10)


I ran the above training code for each feature extractor defined above, and generated the charts below. ub still refers to the TagChunker, which is included to provide a comparison baseline. All the other labels on the X-Axis refer to a classifier trained with one of the above feature extraction functions, using the first letter of each part of the name (p refers to pos(), pnpw refers to prev_next_pos_word(), etc).

conll2000 chunk training accuracy
treebank chunk training accuracy

One of the most interesting results of this test is how including the word in the featureset affects the accuracy. The only time including the word improves the accuracy is if the previous part-of-speech tag is also included in the featureset. Otherwise, including the word decreases accuracy. And looking ahead with next_pos() and next_pos_word() produces the worst results of all, until the previous part-of-speech tag is included. So whatever else you have in a featureset, the most important features are the current & previous pos tags, which, not surprisingly, is exactly what the TagChunker trains on.

Custom Training Data

Not only can the ClassifierChunker be significantly more accurate than the TagChunker, it is also superior for custom training data. For my own custom chunk corpus, I was unable to get above 94% accuracy with the TagChunker. That may seem pretty good, but it means the chunker is unable to parse over 1000 known chunks! However, after training the ClassifierChunker with the prev_next_pos_word feature extractor, I was able to get 100% parsing accuracy on my own chunk corpus. This is a huge win, and means that the behavior of the ClassifierChunker is much more controllable thru manualation.

Distributed NLTK with execnet

(This page has been translated into Spanish by Maria Ramos, and has also been translated into Belorussian)

Want to speed up your natural language processing with NLTK? Have a lot of files to process, but don’t know how to distribute NLTK across many cores?

Well, here’s how you can use execnet to do distributed part of speech tagging with NLTK.


execnet is a simple library for creating a network of gateways and channels that you can use for distributed computation in python. With it, you can start python shells over ssh, send code and/or data, then receive results. Below are 2 scripts that will test the accuracy of NLTK’s recommended part of speech tagger against every file in the brown corpus. The first script (the runner) does all the setup and receives the results, while the second script (the remote module) runs on every gateway, calculating and sending the accuracy of each file it receives for processing.


The runner does the following:

  1. Defines the hosts and number of gateways. I recommend 1 gateway per core per host.
  2. Loads and pickles the default NLTK part of speech tagger.
  3. Opens each gateway and creates a remote execution channel with the tag_files module (the remote module covered below).
  4. Sends the pickled tagger and the name of a corpus (brown) thru the channel.
  5. Once all the channels have been created and initialized, it then sends all of the fileids in the corpus to alternating channels to distribute the work.
  6. Finally, it creates a receive queue and prints the accuracy response from each channel.


import execnet
import nltk.tag, nltk.data
import cPickle as pickle
import tag_files

	'localhost': 2

NICE = 20

channels = []

tagger = pickle.dumps(nltk.data.load(nltk.tag._POS_TAGGER))

for host, count in HOSTS.items():
	print 'opening %d gateways at %s' % (count, host)

	for i in range(count):
		gw = execnet.makegateway('ssh=%s//nice=%d' % (host, NICE))
		channel = gw.remote_exec(tag_files)

count = 0
chan = 0

for fileid in nltk.corpus.brown.fileids():
	print 'sending %s to channel %d' % (fileid, chan)
	count += 1
	# alternate channels
	chan += 1
	if chan >= len(channels): chan = 0

multi = execnet.MultiChannel(channels)
queue = multi.make_receive_queue()

for i in range(count):
	channel, response = queue.get()
	print response

Remote Module

The remote module is much simpler.

  1. Receives and unpickles the tagger.
  2. Receives the corpus name and loads it.
  3. For each fileid received, evaluates the accuracy of the tagger on the tagged sentences and sends an accuracy response.


import nltk.corpus
import cPickle as pickle

if __name__ == '__channelexec__':
	tagger = pickle.loads(channel.receive())
	corpus_name = channel.receive()
	corpus = getattr(nltk.corpus, corpus_name)

	for fileid in channel:
		accuracy = tagger.evaluate(corpus.tagged_sents(fileids=[fileid]))
		channel.send('%s: %f' % (fileid, accuracy))

Putting it all together

Make sure you have NLTK and the corpus data installed on every host. You must also have passwordless ssh access to each host from the master host (the machine you run run_tag_files.py on).

run_tag_files.py and tag_files.py only need to be on the master host; execnet will take care of distributing the code. Assuming run_tag_files.py and tag_files.py are in the same directory, all you need to do is run python run_tag_files.py. You should get a message about opening gateways followed by a bunch of send messages. Then, just wait and watch the accuracy responses to see how accurate the built in part of speech tagger is on the brown corpus.

If you’d like test the accuracy of a different corpus, make sure every host has the corpus data, then send that corpus name instead of brown, and send the fileids from the new corpus.

If you want to test your own tagger, pickle it to a file, then load and send it instead of NLTK’s tagger. Or you can train it on the master first, then send it once training is complete.

Distributed File Processing

In practice, it’s often a PITA to make sure every host has every file you want to process, and you’ll want to process files outside of NLTK’s builtin corpora. My recommendation is to setup a GlusterFS storage cluster so that every host has a common mount point with access to every file that you want to process. If every host has the same mount point, you can send any file path to any channel for processing.

Chunk Extraction with NLTK

Chunk extraction is a useful preliminary step to information extraction, that creates parse trees from unstructured text with a chunker. Once you have a parse tree of a sentence, you can do more specific information extraction, such as named entity recognition and relation extraction.

Chunking is basically a 3 step process:

  1. Tag a sentence
  2. Chunk the tagged sentence
  3. Analyze the parse tree to extract information

I’ve already written about how to train a NLTK part of speech tagger and a chunker, so I’ll assume you’ve already done the training, and now you want to use your pos tagger and iob chunker to do something useful.

IOB Tag Chunker

The previously trained chunker is actually a chunk tagger. It’s a Tagger that assigns IOB chunk tags to part-of-speech tags. In order to use it for proper chunking, we need some extra code to convert the IOB chunk tags into a parse tree. I’ve created a wrapper class that complies with the nltk ChunkParserI interface and uses the trained chunk tagger to get IOB tags and convert them to a proper parse tree.

import nltk.chunk
import itertools

class TagChunker(nltk.chunk.ChunkParserI):
    def __init__(self, chunk_tagger):
        self._chunk_tagger = chunk_tagger

    def parse(self, tokens):
        # split words and part of speech tags
        (words, tags) = zip(*tokens)
        # get IOB chunk tags
        chunks = self._chunk_tagger.tag(tags)
        # join words with chunk tags
        wtc = itertools.izip(words, chunks)
        # w = word, t = part-of-speech tag, c = chunk tag
        lines = [' '.join([w, t, c]) for (w, (t, c)) in wtc if c]
        # create tree from conll formatted chunk lines
        return nltk.chunk.conllstr2tree('\n'.join(lines))

Chunk Extraction

Now that we have a proper NLTK chunker, we can use it to extract chunks. Here’s a simple example that tags a sentence, chunks the tagged sentence, then prints out each noun phrase.

# sentence should be a list of words
tagged = tagger.tag(sentence)
tree = chunker.parse(tagged)
# for each noun phrase sub tree in the parse tree
for subtree in tree.subtrees(filter=lambda t: t.node == 'NP'):
    # print the noun phrase as a list of part-of-speech tagged words
    print subtree.leaves()

Each sub tree has a phrase tag, and the leaves of a sub tree are the tagged words that make up that chunk. Since we’re training the chunker on IOB tags, NP stands for Noun Phrase. As noted before, the results of this natural language processing are heavily dependent on the training data. If your input text isn’t similar to the your training data, then you probably won’t be getting many chunks.

How to Train a NLTK Chunker

In NLTK, chunking is the process of extracting short, well-formed phrases, or chunks, from a sentence. This is also known as partial parsing, since a chunker is not required to capture all the words in a sentence, and does not produce a deep parse tree. But this is a good thing because it’s very hard to create a complete parse grammar for natural language, and full parsing is usually all or nothing. So chunking allows you to get at the bits you want and ignore the rest.

Training a Chunker

The general approach to chunking and parsing is to define rules or expressions that are then matched against the input sentence. But this is a very manual, tedious, and error-prone process, likely to get very complicated real fast. The alternative approach is to train a chunker the same way you train a part-of-speech tagger. Except in this case, instead of training on (word, tag) sequences, we train on (tag, iob) sequences, where iob is a chunk tag defined in the the conll2000 corpus. Here’s a function that will take a list of chunked sentences (from a chunked corpus like conll2000 or treebank), and return a list of (tag, iob) sequences.

import nltk.chunk

def conll_tag_chunks(chunk_sents):
    tag_sents = [nltk.chunk.tree2conlltags(tree) for tree in chunk_sents]
    return [[(t, c) for (w, t, c) in chunk_tags] for chunk_tags in tag_sents]

Chunker Accuracy

So how accurate is the trained chunker? Here’s the rest of the code, followed by a chart of the accuracy results. Note that I’m only using Ngram Taggers. You could additionally use the BrillTagger, but the training takes a ridiculously long time for very minimal gains in accuracy.

import nltk.corpus, nltk.tag

def ubt_conll_chunk_accuracy(train_sents, test_sents):
    train_chunks = conll_tag_chunks(train_sents)
    test_chunks = conll_tag_chunks(test_sents)

    u_chunker = nltk.tag.UnigramTagger(train_chunks)
    print 'u:', nltk.tag.accuracy(u_chunker, test_chunks)

    ub_chunker = nltk.tag.BigramTagger(train_chunks, backoff=u_chunker)
    print 'ub:', nltk.tag.accuracy(ub_chunker, test_chunks)

    ubt_chunker = nltk.tag.TrigramTagger(train_chunks, backoff=ub_chunker)
    print 'ubt:', nltk.tag.accuracy(ubt_chunker, test_chunks)

    ut_chunker = nltk.tag.TrigramTagger(train_chunks, backoff=u_chunker)
    print 'ut:', nltk.tag.accuracy(ut_chunker, test_chunks)

    utb_chunker = nltk.tag.BigramTagger(train_chunks, backoff=ut_chunker)
    print 'utb:', nltk.tag.accuracy(utb_chunker, test_chunks)

# conll chunking accuracy test
conll_train = nltk.corpus.conll2000.chunked_sents('train.txt')
conll_test = nltk.corpus.conll2000.chunked_sents('test.txt')
ubt_conll_chunk_accuracy(conll_train, conll_test)

# treebank chunking accuracy test
treebank_sents = nltk.corpus.treebank_chunk.chunked_sents()
ubt_conll_chunk_accuracy(treebank_sents[:2000], treebank_sents[2000:])
Accuracy for Trained Chunker
Accuracy for Trained Chunker

The ub_chunker and utb_chunker are slight favorites with equal accuracy, so in practice I suggest using the ub_chunker since it takes slightly less time to train.


Training a chunker this way is much easier than creating manual chunk expressions or rules, it can approach 100% accuracy, and the process is re-usable across data sets. As with part-of-speech tagging, the training set really matters, and should be as similar as possible to the actual text that you want to tag and chunk.

Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK Part 3 – Brill Tagger

In regexp and affix pos tagging, I showed how to produce a Python NLTK part-of-speech tagger using Ngram pos tagging in combination with Affix and Regex pos tagging, with accuracy approaching 90%. In part 3, I’ll use the brill tagger to get the accuracy up to and over 90%.

NLTK Brill Tagger

The BrillTagger is different than the previous part of speech taggers. For one, it’s not a SequentialBackoffTagger, though it does use an initial pos tagger, which in our case will be the raubt_tagger from part 2. The brill tagger uses the initial pos tagger to produce initial part of speech tags, then corrects those pos tags based on brill transformational rules. These rules are learned by training the brill tagger with the FastBrillTaggerTrainer and rules templates. Here’s an example, with templates copied from the demo() function in nltk.tag.brill.py. Refer to ngram part of speech tagging for the backoff_tagger function and the train_sents, and regexp part of speech tagging for the word_patterns.

import nltk.tag
from nltk.tag import brill

raubt_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.AffixTagger,
    nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger],

templates = [
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateTagsRule, (1,1)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateTagsRule, (2,2)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateTagsRule, (1,2)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateTagsRule, (1,3)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateWordsRule, (1,1)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateWordsRule, (2,2)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateWordsRule, (1,2)),
    brill.SymmetricProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateWordsRule, (1,3)),
    brill.ProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateTagsRule, (-1, -1), (1,1)),
    brill.ProximateTokensTemplate(brill.ProximateWordsRule, (-1, -1), (1,1))

trainer = brill.FastBrillTaggerTrainer(raubt_tagger, templates)
braubt_tagger = trainer.train(train_sents, max_rules=100, min_score=3)

NLTK Brill Tagger Accuracy

So now we have a braubt_tagger. You can tweak the max_rules and min_score params, but be careful, as increasing the values will exponentially increase the training time without significantly increasing accuracy. In fact, I found that increasing the min_score tended to decrease the accuracy by a percent or 2. So here’s how the braubt_tagger fares against the other NLTK part of speech taggers.


There’s certainly more you can do for part-of-speech tagging with nltk & python, but the brill tagger based braubt_tagger should be good enough for many purposes. The most important component of part-of-speech tagging is using the correct training data. If you want your pos tagger to be accurate, you need to train it on a corpus similar to the text you’ll be tagging. The brown, conll2000, and treebank corpora are what they are, and you shouldn’t assume that a pos tagger trained on them will be accurate on a different corpus. For example, a pos tagger trained on one part of the brown corpus may be 90% accurate on other parts of the brown corpus, but only 50% accurate on the conll2000 corpus. But a pos tagger trained on the conll2000 corpus will be accurate for the treebank corpus, and vice versa, because conll2000 and treebank are quite similar. So make sure you choose your training data carefully.

If you’d like to try to push NLTK part of speech tagging accuracy even higher, see part 4, where I compare the brill tagger to classifier based pos taggers, and nltk.tag.pos_tag.

Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK Part 2 – Regexp and Affix Taggers

Following up on Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK – Ngram Taggers, I test the accuracy of adding an Affix Tagger and a Regexp Tagger to the SequentialBackoffTagger chain.

NLTK Affix Tagger

The AffixTagger learns prefix and suffix patterns to determine the part of speech tag for word. I tried inserting the affix tagger into every possible position of the ubt_tagger to see which method increased accuracy the most. As you’ll see in the results, the aubt_tagger had the highest accuracy.

ubta_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger, nltk.tag.AffixTagger])
ubat_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.AffixTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger])
uabt_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.AffixTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger])
aubt_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.AffixTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger])

NLTK Regexp Tagger

The RegexpTagger allows you to define your own word patterns for determining the part of speech tag. Some of the patterns defined below were taken from chapter 3 of the NLTK book, others I added myself. Since I had already determined that the aubt_tagger was the most accurate, I only tested the regexp tagger at the beginning and end of the pos tagger chain.

word_patterns = [
	(r'^-?[0-9]+(.[0-9]+)?$', 'CD'),
	(r'.*ould$', 'MD'),
	(r'.*ing$', 'VBG'),
	(r'.*ed$', 'VBD'),
	(r'.*ness$', 'NN'),
	(r'.*ment$', 'NN'),
	(r'.*ful$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*ious$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*ble$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*ic$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*ive$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*ic$', 'JJ'),
	(r'.*est$', 'JJ'),
	(r'^a$', 'PREP'),

aubtr_tagger = nltk.tag.RegexpTagger(word_patterns, backoff=aubt_tagger)
raubt_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.AffixTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger],

NLTK Affix and Regexp Tagging Accuracy


As you can see, the aubt_tagger provided the most gain over the ubt_tagger, and the raubt_tagger had a slight gain on top of that. In Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK – Brill Tagger I discuss the results of using the BrillTagger to push the accuracy even higher.

Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK Part 1 – Ngram Taggers

Part of speech tagging is the process of identifying nouns, verbs, adjectives, and other parts of speech in context. NLTK provides the necessary tools for tagging, but doesn’t actually tell you what methods work best, so I decided to find out for myself.

Training and Test Sentences

NLTK has a data package that includes 3 part of speech tagged corpora: brown, conll2000, and treebank. I divided each of these corpora into 2 sets, the training set and the testing set. The choice and size of your training set can have a significant effect on the pos tagging accuracy, so for real world usage, you need to train on a corpus that is very representative of the actual text you want to tag. In particular, the brown corpus has a number of different categories, so choose your categories wisely. I chose these categories primarily because they have a higher occurance of the word food than other categories.

import nltk.corpus, nltk.tag, itertools
brown_review_sents = nltk.corpus.brown.tagged_sents(categories=['reviews'])
brown_lore_sents = nltk.corpus.brown.tagged_sents(categories=['lore'])
brown_romance_sents = nltk.corpus.brown.tagged_sents(categories=['romance'])

brown_train = list(itertools.chain(brown_review_sents[:1000], brown_lore_sents[:1000], brown_romance_sents[:1000]))
brown_test = list(itertools.chain(brown_review_sents[1000:2000], brown_lore_sents[1000:2000], brown_romance_sents[1000:2000]))

conll_sents = nltk.corpus.conll2000.tagged_sents()
conll_train = list(conll_sents[:4000])
conll_test = list(conll_sents[4000:8000])

treebank_sents = nltk.corpus.treebank.tagged_sents()
treebank_train = list(treebank_sents[:1500])
treebank_test = list(treebank_sents[1500:3000])

(Updated 4/15/2010 for new brown categories. Also note that the best way to use conll2000 is with conll2000.tagged_sents('train.txt') and conll2000.tagged_sents('test.txt'), but changing that above may change the accuracy.)

NLTK Ngram Taggers

I started by testing different combinations of the 3 NgramTaggers: UnigramTagger, BigramTagger, and TrigramTagger. These taggers inherit from SequentialBackoffTagger, which allows them to be chained together for greater accuracy. To save myself a little pain when constructing and training these pos taggers, I created a utility method for creating a chain of backoff taggers.

def backoff_tagger(tagged_sents, tagger_classes, backoff=None):
	if not backoff:
		backoff = tagger_classes[0](tagged_sents)
		del tagger_classes[0]

	for cls in tagger_classes:
		tagger = cls(tagged_sents, backoff=backoff)
		backoff = tagger

	return backoff

ubt_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger])
utb_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger])
but_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger])
btu_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.TrigramTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger])
tub_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.TrigramTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger])
tbu_tagger = backoff_tagger(train_sents, [nltk.tag.TrigramTagger, nltk.tag.BigramTagger, nltk.tag.UnigramTagger])

Tagger Accuracy Testing

To test the accuracy of a pos tagger, we can compare it to the test sentences using the nltk.tag.accuracy function.

nltk.tag.accuracy(tagger, test_sents)

Ngram Tagging Accuracy

Ngram Tagging Accuracy
Ngram Tagging Accuracy


The ubt_tagger and utb_taggers are extremely close to each other, but the ubt_tagger is the slight favorite (note that the backoff sequence is in reverse order, so for the ubt_tagger, the trigram tagger backsoff to the bigram tagger, which backsoff to the unigram tagger). In Part of Speech Tagging with NLTK – Regexp and Affix Tagging, I do further testing using the AffixTagger and the RegexpTagger to get the accuracy up past 80%.