预测提及的评分参考分区:参考实现。

Sameer Pradhan, Xiaoqiang Luo, Marta Recasens, Eduard Hovy, Vincent Ng, Michael Strube
{"title":"预测提及的评分参考分区:参考实现。","authors":"Sameer Pradhan,&nbsp;Xiaoqiang Luo,&nbsp;Marta Recasens,&nbsp;Eduard Hovy,&nbsp;Vincent Ng,&nbsp;Michael Strube","doi":"10.3115/v1/P14-2006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The definitions of two coreference scoring metrics- B<sup>3</sup> and CEAF-are underspecified with respect to <i>predicted</i>, as opposed to <i>key</i> (or <i>gold</i>) mentions. Several variations have been proposed that manipulate either, or both, the key and predicted mentions in order to get a one-to-one mapping. On the other hand, the metric BLANC was, until recently, limited to scoring partitions of key mentions. In this paper, we (i) argue that mention manipulation for scoring predicted mentions is unnecessary, and potentially harmful as it could produce unintuitive results; (ii) illustrate the application of all these measures to scoring predicted mentions; (iii) make available an open-source, thoroughly-tested reference implementation of the main coreference evaluation measures; and (iv) rescore the results of the CoNLL-2011/2012 shared task systems with this implementation. This will help the community accurately measure and compare new end-to-end coreference resolution algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":74541,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting","volume":"2014 ","pages":"30-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3115/v1/P14-2006","citationCount":"185","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring Coreference Partitions of Predicted Mentions: A Reference Implementation.\",\"authors\":\"Sameer Pradhan,&nbsp;Xiaoqiang Luo,&nbsp;Marta Recasens,&nbsp;Eduard Hovy,&nbsp;Vincent Ng,&nbsp;Michael Strube\",\"doi\":\"10.3115/v1/P14-2006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The definitions of two coreference scoring metrics- B<sup>3</sup> and CEAF-are underspecified with respect to <i>predicted</i>, as opposed to <i>key</i> (or <i>gold</i>) mentions. Several variations have been proposed that manipulate either, or both, the key and predicted mentions in order to get a one-to-one mapping. On the other hand, the metric BLANC was, until recently, limited to scoring partitions of key mentions. In this paper, we (i) argue that mention manipulation for scoring predicted mentions is unnecessary, and potentially harmful as it could produce unintuitive results; (ii) illustrate the application of all these measures to scoring predicted mentions; (iii) make available an open-source, thoroughly-tested reference implementation of the main coreference evaluation measures; and (iv) rescore the results of the CoNLL-2011/2012 shared task systems with this implementation. This will help the community accurately measure and compare new end-to-end coreference resolution algorithms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting\",\"volume\":\"2014 \",\"pages\":\"30-35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3115/v1/P14-2006\",\"citationCount\":\"185\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 185

摘要

相对于关键(或黄金)提及,两个共同参考评分指标——B3和cef——的定义相对于预测来说没有明确。为了获得一对一的映射,已经提出了几种变体,可以对关键字和预测项进行操作或同时操作。另一方面,直到最近,度量BLANC还仅限于对关键提及的分区进行评分。在本文中,我们(i)认为对预测提及进行评分的提及操作是不必要的,并且可能有害,因为它可能产生不直观的结果;(ii)说明所有这些措施对预测提及评分的应用;(iii)就主要的共同参考评估措施,提供一个开放源码、经过彻底测试的参考实施方案;(iv)通过此实现重新记录CoNLL-2011/2012共享任务系统的结果。这将有助于社区准确地测量和比较新的端到端共同参考分辨率算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoring Coreference Partitions of Predicted Mentions: A Reference Implementation.

The definitions of two coreference scoring metrics- B3 and CEAF-are underspecified with respect to predicted, as opposed to key (or gold) mentions. Several variations have been proposed that manipulate either, or both, the key and predicted mentions in order to get a one-to-one mapping. On the other hand, the metric BLANC was, until recently, limited to scoring partitions of key mentions. In this paper, we (i) argue that mention manipulation for scoring predicted mentions is unnecessary, and potentially harmful as it could produce unintuitive results; (ii) illustrate the application of all these measures to scoring predicted mentions; (iii) make available an open-source, thoroughly-tested reference implementation of the main coreference evaluation measures; and (iv) rescore the results of the CoNLL-2011/2012 shared task systems with this implementation. This will help the community accurately measure and compare new end-to-end coreference resolution algorithms.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信