To Normalize, or Not to Normalize: The Impact of Normalization on Part-of-Speech Tagging
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Does normalization help Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging accuracy on noisy, non-canonical data? To the best of our knowledge, little is known on the actual impact of normalization in a real-world scenario, where gold error detection is not available. We investigate the effect of automatic normalization on POS tagging of tweets. We also compare normalization to strategies that leverage large amounts of unlabeled data kept in its raw form. Our results show that normalization helps, but does not add consistently beyond just word embedding layer initialization. The latter approach yields a tagging model that is competitive with a Twitter state-of-the-art tagger.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2017.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2021Lemmatization of Historical Old Literary Finnish Texts in Modern Orthographycited by 5
- 2022Annotating Norwegian Language Varieties on Twitter for Part-of-Speechcited by 2
- 2024Investigating Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms in Text Datasetscited by 0
- 2026Not All Duplicates Are Coordination: Generic vs. Non-Generic Duplicate Campaigns in Information Operationscited by 0
- 2026Not All Duplicates Are Coordination: Generic vs. Non-Generic Duplicate Campaigns in Information Operations12 Sep 2026
- 2024Investigating Semi-Supervised Learning Algorithms in Text Datasets3 Jan 2024
- 2022Annotating Norwegian Language Varieties on Twitter for Part-of-Speech12 Oct 2022
- 2021Lemmatization of Historical Old Literary Finnish Texts in Modern Orthography7 Jul 2021