SMATCH++: Standardized and Extended Evaluation of Semantic Graphs

J. Opitz
{"title":"SMATCH++: Standardized and Extended Evaluation of Semantic Graphs","authors":"J. Opitz","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2305.06993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Smatch metric is a popular method for evaluating graph distances, as is necessary, for instance, to assess the performance of semantic graph parsing systems. However, we observe some issues in the metric that jeopardize meaningful evaluation. E.g., opaque pre-processing choices can affect results, and current graph-alignment solvers do not provide us with upper-bounds. Without upper-bounds, however, fair evaluation is not guaranteed. Furthermore, adaptions of Smatch for extended tasks (e.g., fine-grained semantic similarity) are spread out, and lack a unifying framework. For better inspection, we divide the metric into three modules: pre-processing, alignment, and scoring. Examining each module, we specify its goals and diagnose potential issues, for which we discuss and test mitigation strategies. For pre-processing, we show how to fully conform to annotation guidelines that allow structurally deviating but valid graphs. For safer and enhanced alignment, we show the feasibility of optimal alignment in a standard evaluation setup, and develop a lossless graph compression method that shrinks the search space and significantly increases efficiency. For improved scoring, we propose standardized and extended metric calculation of fine-grained sub-graph meaning aspects. Our code is available at https://github.com/flipz357/smatchpp","PeriodicalId":73025,"journal":{"name":"Findings (Sydney (N.S.W.)","volume":"1 1","pages":"1550-1562"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Findings (Sydney (N.S.W.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.06993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The Smatch metric is a popular method for evaluating graph distances, as is necessary, for instance, to assess the performance of semantic graph parsing systems. However, we observe some issues in the metric that jeopardize meaningful evaluation. E.g., opaque pre-processing choices can affect results, and current graph-alignment solvers do not provide us with upper-bounds. Without upper-bounds, however, fair evaluation is not guaranteed. Furthermore, adaptions of Smatch for extended tasks (e.g., fine-grained semantic similarity) are spread out, and lack a unifying framework. For better inspection, we divide the metric into three modules: pre-processing, alignment, and scoring. Examining each module, we specify its goals and diagnose potential issues, for which we discuss and test mitigation strategies. For pre-processing, we show how to fully conform to annotation guidelines that allow structurally deviating but valid graphs. For safer and enhanced alignment, we show the feasibility of optimal alignment in a standard evaluation setup, and develop a lossless graph compression method that shrinks the search space and significantly increases efficiency. For improved scoring, we propose standardized and extended metric calculation of fine-grained sub-graph meaning aspects. Our code is available at https://github.com/flipz357/smatchpp
SMATCH++:语义图的标准化扩展评价
Smatch度量是一种常用的评估图距离的方法,例如,评估语义图解析系统的性能是必要的。然而,我们注意到指标中的一些问题危及有意义的评价。例如,不透明的预处理选择可能会影响结果,而当前的图形对齐解算器无法为我们提供上限。然而,如果没有上限,就不能保证公平的评价。此外,Smatch对扩展任务的适应(例如,细粒度语义相似性)分散,缺乏统一的框架。为了更好地检查,我们将度量划分为三个模块:预处理、对齐和评分。检查每个模块,我们指定其目标并诊断潜在问题,为此我们讨论并测试缓解策略。对于预处理,我们展示了如何完全符合注释准则,这些准则允许结构上有偏差但有效的图。为了更安全和增强对齐,我们展示了在标准评估设置中进行最佳对齐的可行性,并开发了一种无损图压缩方法,该方法缩小了搜索空间并显著提高了效率。为了改进评分,我们提出了细粒度子图意义方面的标准化和扩展度量计算。我们的代码可在https://github.com/flipz357/smatchpp
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信