seqeval VS xgboost

. The standard way to evaluate NER (or any other sequence labelling problem) is to use the conlleval script (https://www.clips.uantwerpen.be/conll2000/chunking/output.html) or through the seqeval package in python (https://github.com/chakki-works/seqeval) . Either way, you need a list of predicted labels and a list of gold labels (see the code example in the link, it should be trivial to converse your output to the same data format).

Finally, when it comes to building models and making predictions, Python and R have a plethora of options available. Libraries like scikit-learn, statsmodels, and TensorFlowin Python, or caret, randomForest, and xgboostin R, provide powerful machine learning algorithms and statistical models that can be applied to a wide range of problems. What's more, these libraries are open-source and have extensive documentation and community support, making it easy to learn and apply new techniques without needing specialized training or expensive software licenses.

You can find the problem outlined here: https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/issues/5826. u/hcho3 diagnosed the problem and corrected it as of XGB version 1.2.0.

Reference: https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/issues/2031

By the way, most of the time XGBoost works just as well for projects, would not recommend applying deep learning to every single problem you come across, it's something Stanford CS really likes to showcase when it's well known (1) that sometimes "smaller"/less complex models can perform just as well or have their own interpretive advantages and (2) it is well known within ML and DS communities that deep learning does not perform as well with tabular datasets and using deep learning as a default to every problem is just poor practice. However, if you do (god forbid) get language, speech/audio, vision/imaging, or even time series models then deep learning as a baseline is not the worst idea.