[Corpora-List] Q: Classification performance across languages and language families

Sat Jun 2 13:22:52 UTC 2012

Dear Ralf,

are the translated terms ("descriptors") used in the classification
process?  If they are not, then I'm way off target.  But it looks like they
are, and if they are then the accuracy and precision of those translations
are very relevant to the system performance

Related diatribe:
http://kilgarriff.co.uk/Publications/1998-K-ELSNET-lex_quality.txt

Adam

On 2 June 2012 13:29, Ralf Steinberger <ralf.steinberger at jrc.ec.europa.eu>wrote:

> Dear Adam,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your proposal and for allowing me to clarify: EuroVoc is a *classification
> scheme* with exactly the same 6700 subject domain classes in all
> languages, i.e. each class has a numerical identifier and exactly *one
> class* *label* that has been translated into all 27 or so languages.
> Example EuroVoc categories are ‘nuclear materials’, ‘Austria’, ‘fishery
> management’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘budget’, ‘population statistics’, ...****
>
> ** **
>
> I cannot see how such a classification scheme would favour one language
> over another, especially as the documents are parallel translations, as
> well: they have the same contents in all languages. EuroVoc is in no way
> comparable to a resource such as WordNet, which rather lists and organises
> existing words of a language, with varying coverage. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Greetings from Italy to the UK.****
>
> ** **
>
> Ralf****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* adam.kilgarriff at gmail.com [mailto:adam.kilgarriff at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Kilgarriff
> *Sent:* 02 June 2012 14:13
> *To:* Ralf Steinberger
> *Cc:* corpora at uib.no; clef at dei.unipd.it; ln at cines.fr
> *Subject:* Re: [Corpora-List] Q: Classification performance across
> languages and language families****
>
> ** **
>
> Ralf,****
>
> ** **
>
> Please excuse scepticism, but what about the simple hypothesis that it all
> depends on thesaurus-quality.  My hunch would be that it started from a
> Germanic language, hence good performance there, and that Slavic lgs have
> been added more recently, so there have been less years for
> debugging/improving, and that there was a particularly inspired Hungarian
> translator!****
>
> ** **
>
> Maltese has a special problem - Maltese hasn't ever had a technical
> vocabulary so there was nothing the Maltese thesaurus-translators could do
> except make things up.****
>
> ** **
>
> (Of course I'll be happy to have my hypothesis quashed by someone who
> knows the history of Eurovoc)****
>
> ** **
>
> Adam****
>
> ** **
>
> On 2 June 2012 12:40, Ralf Steinberger <ralf.steinberger at jrc.ec.europa.eu>
> wrote:****
>
> A question and an invitation to discussion.****
>
>  ****
>
> We recently carried out multi-label categorisation experiments<http://langtech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Documents/2012_LREC-JEX-final.pdf>on a mostly parallel set of documents in 22 languages, covering the
> language families Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Hellenic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic
> and Semitic. The document set is reasonably large (22K to 42K documents per
> language), using the thousands of subject domain categories from the EuroVoc
> thesaurus <http://eurovoc.europa.eu/>. The performance across languages
> was rather uniform, with the exception of the outlier Maltese, which
> performed considerably less well. The languages covered are Bulgarian,
> Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
> Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese,
> Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. ****
>
>  ****
>
> To my great surprise, the highly inflected agglutinative language *
> Hungarian* produced the best results of all. The five Germanic languages
> ended up in the top ten positions, the five Slavic languages in the bottom
> half. The results for the other language families were less consistent. **
> **
>
>  ****
>
> *Q1:* Does anyone have an intuition how these results could be explained?*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> *Q2:* Has anyone ran similar experiments with other types of classifiers
> or data? Are the results similar?****
>
>  ****
>
> My initial expectation had been that highly inflected languages would
> perform less well and that feature space reduction using lemmatisation
> would improve the results. However, our experiments for Czech, English,
> Estonian and French (described in Ebrahim et al., forthcoming) showed the
> contrary, rather consistently for all four languages and language families:
> (1) lemmatisation reduces the performance and (2) adding part-of-speech
> (POS) information to the word form and/or to the lemma improves the
> performance. ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Q3:* Can we conclude that: the scarcer the feature space, the better the
> classification performance? ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Q4:* If that were the case, why did Slavic languages (and Maltese)
> perform less well in our experiments? ****
>
>  ****
>
> I would be pleased if you could share your own experience and/or your
> opinions.****
>
>  ****
>
> The classification tool (JRC EuroVoc Indexer JEX<http://langtech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Eurovoc.html>)
> and the multilingual document set can be downloaded from
> http://langtech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Eurovoc.html . Details of our
> experiments are given in the two papers below.****
>
>  ****
>
> Steinberger Ralf, Mohamed Ebrahim & Marco Turchi (2012). *JRC EuroVoc
> Indexer JEX - A freely available multi-label categorisation tool*.
> Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Language Resources and
> Evaluation (LREC'2012), Istanbul, 21-27 May 2012. (PDF<http://langtech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Documents/2012_LREC-JEX-final.pdf>
> )****
>
>  ****
>
> Ebrahim Mohamed, Maud Ehrmann, Marco Turchi & Ralf Steinberger
> (forthcoming). *Multi-label EuroVoc classification for Eastern and
> Southern EU Languages*. In: Cristina Vertan & Walther v. Hahn:
> Multilingual processing in Eastern and Southern EU languages -
> Low-resourced technologies and translation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
> Cambridge, UK.****
>
>  ****
>
> Greetings,****
>
>  ****
>
> Ralf****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Ralf Steinberger* ****
>
> European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC)****
>
> URL: http://langtech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/RS.html  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> ========================================
> Adam Kilgarriff <http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/>
> adam at lexmasterclass.com
> Director                                    Lexical Computing Ltd<http://www.sketchengine.co.uk/>
>
> Visiting Research Fellow                 University of Leeds<http://leeds.ac.uk>
>   ****
>
> *Corpora for all* with the Sketch Engine <http://www.sketchengine.co.uk>
>               ****
>
>                         *DANTE: a lexical database for English<http://www.webdante.com>
>                   *****
>
> ========================================****
>
> ** **
>

-- 
========================================
Adam Kilgarriff <http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/>
adam at lexmasterclass.com
Director                                    Lexical Computing
Ltd<http://www.sketchengine.co.uk/>

Visiting Research Fellow                 University of
Leeds<http://leeds.ac.uk>

*Corpora for all* with the Sketch Engine <http://www.sketchengine.co.uk>

                        *DANTE: a lexical database for
English<http://www.webdante.com>
                  *
========================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20120602/13853503/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora