This is a page of the previous Morpho Challenge 2008. The current challenge is Morpho Challenge 2009.
There are a number of data files involved in this challenge. Each type of file is available for each language.
First and foremost, there is a list of word forms. The words have been extracted from a text corpus, and each word in the list is preceded by its frequency in the corpus used.
For instance, a subset of the supplied English word list looks like this:
... 1 barefoot's 2 barefooted 6699 feet 653 flies 2939 flying 1782 foot 64 footprints ...
The participants' task is to return a list containing exactly the same words as in the input, with morpheme analyses provided for each word. The list returned shall not contain the word frequency information.
A submission for the above English words may look like this:
... barefoot's BARE FOOT +GEN barefooted BARE FOOT +PAST feet FOOT +PL flies FLY_N +PL, FLY_V +3SG flying FLY_V +PCP1 foot FOOT footprints FOOT PRINT +PL ...
There are a number of things to note about the result file: Each line of the file contains a word (e.g., "feet") separated from its analysis (e.g., "FOOT +PL") by one TAB character. The word needs to look exactly as it does in the input; no capitalization or change of character encoding is allowed. The analysis contains morpheme labels separated using space. The order in which the labels appear does not matter; e.g., "FOOT +PL" is equivalent to "+PL FOOT". The labels are arbitrary: e.g., instead of using "FOOT" you might use "morpheme784" and instead of "+PL" you might use "morpheme2". However, we strongly recommend you to use intuitive labels, when possible, since they make it easier for anyone to get an idea of the quality of the result by looking at it.
If a word has several interpretations, all interpretations should be supplied: e.g., the word "flies" may be the plural form of the noun "fly" (insect) or the third person singular present tense form of the verb "to fly". The alternative analyses must be separated using a comma, as in: "FLY_N +PL, FLY_V +3SG". The existence of alternative analyses makes the task challenging, and we leave it to the participants to decide how much effort they will put into this aspect of the task. In English, for instance, in order to get a perfect score, it would be necessary to distinguish the different functions of the ending "-s" (plural or person ending) as well as the different parts-of-speech of the stem "fly" (noun or verb). As the results will be evaluated against reference analyses (our so-called gold standard), it is worth reading about the guiding principles used when constructing the gold standard.
As far as we understand, you can use any characters in your morpheme labels except whitespace and comma (,). However, we cannot guarantee that the evaluation scripts will work properly, if your labels contain some "strange" characters.
The word list (input data) has been constructed by collecting word
forms occurring in a text corpus. The text corpora have been obtained
from the Wortschatz
collection at the University of Leipzig (Germany). We used the
plain text files (sentences.txt for each language); the
corpus sizes are 3 million sentences for English, Finnish and German,
and 1 million sentences for Turkish. For English, Finnish and Turkish
we use preliminary corpora, which have not yet been released publicly
at the Wortschatz site. The corpora have been preprocessed for the
Morpho Challenge (tokenized, lower-cased, some conversion of character
If the participants like to do so, they can use the corpora in order to get information about the context in which the different words occur.
We are most grateful to the University of Leipzig for making these resources available to the Challenge, and in particular we thank Stefan Bordag for his kind assistance.
The text data (135K sentences with 3.9M words) used same as in this paper:
Habash, Nizar and Fatiha Sadat. Arabic Preprocessing Schemes for Statistical Machine Translation, In Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), New York, 2006. [PDF]
Unfortunately this text data is not freely available.
The desired "correct" analyses for a random sample of circa 500 words are supplied for each language. These samples can be used for visual inspection and as a development test set (in order to get a rough estimate of the performance of the participants' morpheme-analyzing algorithm).
The format of the gold standard file is exactly the same as that of the result file to be submitted. That is, each line contains a word and its analysis. The word is separated from the analysis by a TAB character. Morpheme labels in the analysis are separated from each other by a space character. For some words there are multiple correct analyses. These alternative analyses are separated by a comma (,). Examples:
|English||baby-sitters baby_N sit_V er_s +PL|
indoctrinated in_p doctrine_N ate_s +PAST
|Finnish||linuxiin linux_N +ILL|
makaronia makaroni_N +PTV
|German||choreographische choreographie_N isch +ADJ-e|
zurueckzubehalten zurueck_B zu be halt_V +INF
|Turkish||kontrole kontrol +DAT|
popUlerliGini popUler +DER_lHg +POS2S +ACC, popUler +DER_lHg +POS3 +ACC3
|Arabic||Algbn gabon POS:N Al+ +SG +MASC|
The English and German gold standards are based on the CELEX data base. The Finnish gold standard is based on the two-level morphology analyzer FINTWOL from Lingsoft, Inc. The Turkish gold-standard analyses have been obtained from a morphological parser developed at Boğaziçi University; it is based on Oflazer's finite-state machines, with a number of changes. We are indebted to Ebru Arısoy for making the Turkish gold standard available to us.
For Arabic the gold standard analyses are based on representation of lexeme and features used the Aragen system (a wrapper using
publicly availble BAMA-1 databases):
Habash, Nizar. Large Scale Lexeme Based Arabic Morphological Generation. In Proceedings of Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN-04). Fez, Morocco, 2004. [PDF]
The first part of an analysis is a lexeme followed by list of features.
The morphological analyses are morpheme analyses. This means that only grammatical categories that are realized as morphemes are included. For instance, for none of the languages will you find a singular morpheme for nouns or a present-tense morpheme for verbs, because these grammatical categories do not alter or add anything to the word form, in contrast to, e.g., the plural form of a noun (house vs. house+s), or the past tense of verbs (help vs. help+ed, come vs. came).
The morpheme labels that correspond to inflectional (and sometimes also derivational) affixes have been marked with an initial plus sign (e.g., +PL, +PAST). This is due to a feature of the evaluation script: in addition to the overall performance statistics, evaluation measures are also computed separately for the labels starting with a plus sign and those without an initial plus sign. It is thus possible to make an approximate assessment of how accurately affixes are analyzed vs. non-affixes (mostly stems). If you use the same naming convention when labeling the morphemes proposed by your algorithm, this kind of statistics will be available for your output (see the evaluation page for more information).
The morpheme labels that have not been marked as affixes (no initial plus sign) are typically stems. These labels consist of an intuitive string, usually followed by an underscore character (_) and a part-of-speech tag, e.g., "baby_N", "sit_V". In many cases, especially in English, the same morpheme can function as different parts-of-speech; e.g., the English word "force" can be a noun or a verb. In the majority of these cases, however, if there is only a difference in syntax (and not in meaning), the morpheme has been labeled as either a noun or a verb, throughout. For instance, the "original" part-of-speech of "force" is a noun, and consequently both noun and verb inflections of "force" contain the morpheme "force_N":
|forces||force_N +3SG, force_N +PL|
Thus, there is not really a need for your algorithm to distinguish between different meanings or syntactic roles of the discovered stem morphemes. However, in some rare cases, if the meanings of the different parts-of-speech do differ clearly, there are two variants, e.g., "train_N" (vehicle), "train_V" (to teach), "fly_N" (insect), "fly_V" (to move through the air). But again, if there are ambiguous meanings within the same part-of-speech, these are not marked in any way, e.g., "fan_N" (device for producing a current of air) vs. "fan_N" (admirer). This notation is a consequence of using CELEX and FINTWOL as the sources for our gold standards. We could have removed the part-of-speech tags, but we decided to leave them there, since they carry useful information without significantly making the task more difficult. There are no part-of-speech tags in the Turkish gold standard.
If you want to carry out a small-scale evaluation yourself using the gold standard sample, you need to download a randomly generated so-called word pairs file for each language to be tested. Read more about this on the evaluation page.
In the source data used for the different languages, there is variation in how accurately certain distinctions are made when letters are rendered. This makes it hard to apply a unified character encoding scheme for all the languages (such as UTF-8). Thus, the following encodings have been used, in which all letters are encoded as one-byte (8-bit) characters:
|Language||Word list||Text corpus||Sample of gold standard||Random word pairs file|
|English||Text||Text gzipped||Text gzipped||Text||Text|
|Finnish||Text||Text gzipped||Text gzipped||Text||Text|
|German||Text||Text gzipped||Text gzipped||Text||Text|
|Turkish||Text||Text gzipped||Text gzipped||Text||Text|
Participation in competition 2 does not necessarily require any extra effort by the participants. The organizers will use the analyses provided by the participants for competition 1 in information retrieval experiments. Data from CLEF will be used.
However, because the information retrieval evaluation texts are different from the training texts of competition 1, a slightly better IR performance may be obtained, by submitting also the analyses of the words that do not exist in the word lists of competition 1. The joined word lists can be downloaded below.
|Language||Word list||Text corpus|
|English||See the paragraph below|
|Finnish||Text||Text gzipped||See the paragraph below|
|German||Text||Text gzipped||See the paragraph below|
Those participants who wish to use the full text corpora in order to get information about the context in which the different words occur, please contact the organizers for more information how to register to CLEF to obtain the full texts. If there are participants who wish to submit morpheme analysis for words in their actual context (competition 2b), they will need to request the full texts, too. If you need the full texts, please contact the organizers for details how to fill in and submit the CLEF Registration Form and CLEF End-User Agreement. The DL for this registration is 1 May, 2008.
NOTE: If you do not participate in competition 2b and do not need the full texts for to submit the unsupervised morpheme analysis for competition 2, it is enough to just download the data available at this page.
You are at: CIS → Unsupervised Morpheme Analysis -- Morpho Challenge 2008
Page maintained by webmaster at cis.hut.fi, last updated Tuesday, 03-Feb-2009 18:23:38 EET