基于Reuters-21578数据库的公开信息提取方法评价

J. M. Rodríguez, H. Merlino, Patricia Pesado, Ramón García-Martínez
{"title":"基于Reuters-21578数据库的公开信息提取方法评价","authors":"J. M. Rodríguez, H. Merlino, Patricia Pesado, Ramón García-Martínez","doi":"10.1145/3184066.3184099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following article shows the precision, the recall and the F1-measure for three knowledge extraction methods under Open Information Extraction paradigm. These methods are: ReVerb, OLLIE and ClausIE. For the calculation of these three measures, a representative sample of Reuters-21578 was used; 103 newswire texts were taken randomly from that database. A big discrepancy was observed, after analyzing the obtained results, between the expected and the observed precision for ClausIE. In order to save the observed gap in ClausIE precision, a simple improvement is proposed for the method. Although the correction improved the precision of Clausie, ReVerb turned out to be the most precise method; however ClausIE is the one with the better F1-measure.","PeriodicalId":109559,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of open information extraction methods using Reuters-21578 database\",\"authors\":\"J. M. Rodríguez, H. Merlino, Patricia Pesado, Ramón García-Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3184066.3184099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The following article shows the precision, the recall and the F1-measure for three knowledge extraction methods under Open Information Extraction paradigm. These methods are: ReVerb, OLLIE and ClausIE. For the calculation of these three measures, a representative sample of Reuters-21578 was used; 103 newswire texts were taken randomly from that database. A big discrepancy was observed, after analyzing the obtained results, between the expected and the observed precision for ClausIE. In order to save the observed gap in ClausIE precision, a simple improvement is proposed for the method. Although the correction improved the precision of Clausie, ReVerb turned out to be the most precise method; however ClausIE is the one with the better F1-measure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":109559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3184066.3184099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3184066.3184099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

下面的文章展示了开放信息抽取范式下三种知识抽取方法的准确率、召回率和f1测度。这些方法是:ReVerb, OLLIE和ClausIE。在计算这三个指标时,使用了具有代表性的Reuters-21578样本;从数据库中随机抽取了103条新闻专线文本。对所得结果进行分析后发现,ClausIE的期望精度与实际精度之间存在较大差异。为了节省观测到的ClausIE精度差距,对该方法进行了简单的改进。虽然修正提高了克劳西的精度,但混响是最精确的方法;然而,clusie是一个更好的f1测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of open information extraction methods using Reuters-21578 database
The following article shows the precision, the recall and the F1-measure for three knowledge extraction methods under Open Information Extraction paradigm. These methods are: ReVerb, OLLIE and ClausIE. For the calculation of these three measures, a representative sample of Reuters-21578 was used; 103 newswire texts were taken randomly from that database. A big discrepancy was observed, after analyzing the obtained results, between the expected and the observed precision for ClausIE. In order to save the observed gap in ClausIE precision, a simple improvement is proposed for the method. Although the correction improved the precision of Clausie, ReVerb turned out to be the most precise method; however ClausIE is the one with the better F1-measure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信