# Easy way to evaluate the output of ner.correct against its initial input

**URL:** <https://support.prodi.gy/t/easy-way-to-evaluate-the-output-of-ner-correct-against-its-initial-input/4446>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Tags:** usage, ner, training\
**Created:** [July 15, 2021, 9:26am UTC](https://support.prodi.gy/t/easy-way-to-evaluate-the-output-of-ner-correct-against-its-initial-input/4446 "2021-07-15T09:26:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![simonc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@simonc](https://support.prodi.gy/u/simonc)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2021, 9:26am UTC](https://support.prodi.gy/t/easy-way-to-evaluate-the-output-of-ner-correct-against-its-initial-input/4446/1 "2021-07-15T09:26:08Z")

</div>

Given the following situation what is the easiest strategy to get evaluation metrics (Precision, Recall, F-Measure) for NER performance

- We have some preannotated material **A** (not produced by a spaCy or prodigy model)
- We use `ner.manual` recipe to produce the corrected version **B**
- How can we measure the performance of **A** against gold **B** without applying to many conversion steps?

Thanks for hints.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ines](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/support.prodi.gy/ines/32/3_2.png) [@ines](https://support.prodi.gy/u/ines)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2021, 1:00am UTC](https://support.prodi.gy/t/easy-way-to-evaluate-the-output-of-ner-correct-against-its-initial-input/4446/2 "2021-07-19T01:00:23Z")

</div>

Hi! I think the easiest way to do that would be to import your preannotated dataset into a separate Prodigy dataset and then run two training experiments with `prodigy train` and the same settings: one for the preannotated dataset and one for the corrected dataset. You'll then be able to compare the reported scores for both experiments and see how the model trained on your corrections compares.