A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies

on

  • 234 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
234
Views on SlideShare
204
Embed Views
30

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 30

https://twitter.com 29
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies Presentation Transcript

  • A Vague Sense Classifier for Detecting Vague Definitions in Ontologies Panos Alexopoulos, John Pavlopoulos 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Gothenburg, Sweden, 26–30 April 2014
  • 2 Vagueness Introduction ●Vagueness is a semantic phenomenon where predicates admit borderline cases, i.e. cases where it is not determinately true that the predicate applies or not (Shapiro 2006). ●This happens when predicates have blurred boundaries: ● What’s the threshold number of years separating old and not old films? ● What are the exact criteria that distinguish modern restaurants from non-modern?
  • 3 Vagueness Consequences Introduction ●The problem with vague terms in semantic data is the possibility of disagreements! ●E.g., when we asked domain experts to provide instances of the concept Critical Business Process, there were certain processes for which there was a dispute among them about whether they should be regarded as critical or not. ●The problem was that different experts had different criteria of process criticality and could not decide which of these were sufficient to classify a process as critical.
  • 4 Problematic Scenarios Introduction 1. Structuring Data with a Vague Ontology: Possible disagreement among experts when defining class and relation instances. 2. Utilizing Vague Facts in Ontology-Based Systems: Reasoning results might not meet users’ expectations 3. Integrating Vague Semantic Information: The merging of particular vague elements can lead to data that will not be valid for all its users.
  • 5 Problem Definition & Approach Automatic Vagueness Detection ●Can we automatically determine whether an ontology entity (class, relation etc.) is vague or not? ● “StrategicClient” as “A client that has a high value for the company” is vague! ● “AmericanCompany” as “A company that has legal status in the Unites States” is not! Problem Definition ●We train a binary classifier that may distinguish between vague and non-vague term word senses. ●Training is supervised, using examples from Wordnet. ●We use this classifier to determine whether a given ontology element definition is vague or not. Approach
  • 6 Data Automatic Vagueness Detection ●2,000 adjective senses from WordNet. ● 1,000 vague ● 1,000 non-vague ●Inter-agreement of vague/non-vague annotation among 3 human judges was 0.64 (Cohen’s Kappa) Vague Senses Non Vague Senses • Abnormal: not normal, not typical or usual or regularor conforming to a norm • Compound: composed of more than one part • Impenitent: impervious to moral persuasion • Biweekly: occurring every two weeks. • Notorious: known widely and usually unfavorably • Irregular: falling below the manufacturer's standard • Aroused: emotionally aroused • Outermost: situated at the farthest possible point from a center.
  • 7 Training and Evaluation Automatic Vagueness Detection ●80% of the data used to train a multinomial Naive Bayes classifier. ●We removed stop words and we used the bag of words assumption to represent each instance. ●The remaining 20% of the data was used as a test set. ●Classification accuracy was 84%!
  • 8 Comparison with Subjectivity Analyzer Automatic Vagueness Detection ●We also used a subjective sense classifier to classify our dataset’s senses as subjective or objective. ●From the 1000 vague senses, only 167 were classified as subjective while from the 1000 non-vague ones 993. ●This shows that treating vagueness in the same way as subjectiveness is not really effective.
  • 9 Use Case: Detecting Vagueness in CiTO Ontology Automatic Vagueness Detection ●As an ontology use case we considered CiTO, an ontology that enables characterization of the nature or type of citations. ●CiTO consists primarily of relations, many of which are vague (e.g. plagiarizes). ●We selected 44 relations and we had 3 human judges manually classify them as vague or not. ●Then we applied our Wordnet-trained vagueness classifier on the textual definitions of the same relations.
  • 10 Use Case: Detecting Vagueness in CiTO Ontology Automatic Vagueness Detection Vague Relations Non Vague Relations • plagiarizes: A property indicating that the author of the citing entity plagiarizes the cited entity, by including textual or other elements from the cited entity without formal acknowledgement of their source • sharesAuthorInstitutionWith: Each entity has at least one author that shares a common institutional affiliation with an author of the other entity • citesAsAuthority: The citing entity cites the cited entity as one that provides an authoritative description or definition of the subject under discussion. • providesDataFor: The cited entity presents data that are used in work described in the citing entity.
  • 11 Use Case: Detecting Vagueness in CiTO Ontology Automatic Vagueness Detection ●Classification Results: ● 82% of relations were correctly classified as vague/non-vague ● 94% accuracy for non-vague relations. ● 74% accuracy for vague relations. ●Again, we classified the same relations with the subjectivity classifier: ● 40% of vague/non-vague relations were classified as subjective/objective respectively. ● 94% of non-vague were classified as objective. ● 7% of vague relations were classified as subjective.
  • 12 Future Work Vagueness-Aware Semantic Data ●Incorporate the current classifier into an ontology analysis tool ●Improve the classifier by contemplating new features ●See whether it is possible to build a vague sense lexicon.
  • 13 Questions? Thank you! iSOCO Madrid Av. del Partenón, 16-18, 1º7ª Campo de las Naciones 28042 Madrid España (t) +34 913 349 797 iSOCO Pamplona Parque Tomás Caballero, 2, 6º4ª 31006 Pamplona España (t) +34 948 102 408 iSOCO Valencia C/ Prof. Beltrán Báguena, 4 Oficina 107 46009 Valencia España (t) +34 963 467 143 iSOCO Barcelona Av. Torre Blanca, 57 Edificio ESADE CREAPOLIS Oficina 3C 15 08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès Barcelona, España (t) +34 935 677 200 iSOCO Colombia Complejo Ruta N Calle 67, 52-20 Piso 3, Torre A Medellín Colombia (t) +57 516 7770 ext. 1132 Key Vendor Virtual Assistant 2013 Quieres innovar? Dr. Panos Alexopoulos Semantic Applications Research Manager palexopoulos@isoco.com (t) +34 913 349 797