Difference between revisions of "WordNet - RTE Users"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| | | | ||
| FIRST USE: Argument alignment between T and H.<br/>SECOND USE: used to change all the nominal predicates into verbs, to calculate relatedness between T and H (using VerbOcean). | | FIRST USE: Argument alignment between T and H.<br/>SECOND USE: used to change all the nominal predicates into verbs, to calculate relatedness between T and H (using VerbOcean). | ||
− | | FIRST USE: Ablation test performed. Impact of the resource: -0.17% accuracy/null respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.16%/+0.34% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3.<br/>SECOND USE (WordNet+VerbOcean): null/+0.17% accuracy respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.5%/+0.67% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3. | + | | FIRST USE: Ablation test performed. Impact of the resource: -0.17% accuracy/null respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.16%/+0.34% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3.<br/> |
+ | SECOND USE (WordNet+VerbOcean): null/+0.17% accuracy respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.5%/+0.67% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3. | ||
|- bgcolor="#ECECEC" align="left" | |- bgcolor="#ECECEC" align="left" | ||
Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
| RTE5 | | RTE5 | ||
| | | | ||
− | | Similarity between lemmata, computed by WordNet-based metrics | + | | FIRST USE: Similarity between lemmata, computed by WordNet-based metrics.<br/> |
− | | Ablation test performed. Positive impact of the resource on two-way run: +0.83% accuracy. Negative impact on three-way run: -0.33% accuracy (-0.5% for two-way derived). | + | SECOND USE: antonymy relations between verbs. |
+ | | FIRST USE: Ablation test performed. Positive impact of the resource on two-way run: +0.83% accuracy. Negative impact on three-way run: -0.33% accuracy (-0.5% for two-way derived).<br/> | ||
+ | SECOND USE (WordNet+VerbOcean+DLSIUAES_negation_list): positive impact on two-way run: +0.66% accuracy. Negative impact on three-way run: -1% (-0.5% for two-way derived). | ||
|- bgcolor="#ECECEC" align="left" | |- bgcolor="#ECECEC" align="left" |
Revision as of 09:04, 1 December 2009
When not otherwise specified, the data about version, usage and evaluation of the resource have been provided by participants themselves.
Participants* | Campaign | Version | Specific usage description | Evaluations / Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
AUEB | RTE5 | During the calculation of the similarity measures we treat words from T and H that are synonyms according to WordNet as identical. | Ablation test performed. Negative impact of the resource: -2% accuracy on two-way, -2.67% on three-way task. | |
BIU | RTE5 | 3.0 | Synonyms, hyponyms (2 levels away from the original term), the hyponym_instance relation and derivations. | Ablation test performed. Positive impact of the resource: +2.5% accuracy on two-way task. |
Boeing | RTE5 | The system makes uses Wordnet synonyms, hypernyms relationships between (senses of) words, "similar" (SIM), "pertains" (PER), and "derivational" (DER) links to recognize equivalence between T and H. | Ablation test performed. Positive impact of the resource: +4% accuracy on two-way, +5.67% on three-way task. | |
DFKI | RTE5 | FIRST USE: Argument alignment between T and H. SECOND USE: used to change all the nominal predicates into verbs, to calculate relatedness between T and H (using VerbOcean). |
FIRST USE: Ablation test performed. Impact of the resource: -0.17% accuracy/null respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.16%/+0.34% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3. SECOND USE (WordNet+VerbOcean): null/+0.17% accuracy respectively on two-way and three-way task for run1; +0.5%/+0.67% for run2; +0.17%/+0.17% for run3. | |
DirRelCond | RTE5 | Use of many WordNet relations (such as synonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, holonymy etc.) to compute the relatedness between words with the same part of speech in T and H. | No ablation test performed. The resource cannot be removed without breaking the functionality of the system. | |
DLSIUAES | RTE5 | FIRST USE: Similarity between lemmata, computed by WordNet-based metrics. SECOND USE: antonymy relations between verbs. |
FIRST USE: Ablation test performed. Positive impact of the resource on two-way run: +0.83% accuracy. Negative impact on three-way run: -0.33% accuracy (-0.5% for two-way derived). SECOND USE (WordNet+VerbOcean+DLSIUAES_negation_list): positive impact on two-way run: +0.66% accuracy. Negative impact on three-way run: -1% (-0.5% for two-way derived). | |
AUEB | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
BIU | RTE4 | 3.0 | Synonyms, hyponyms (2 levels away from the original term), the hyponym_instance relation and derivations. Also used as part of our novel lexical-syntactic resource | 0.8% improvement in ablation test on RTE-4. Potential contribution is higher since this resource partially overlaps with the novel lexical-syntactic rule base |
Boeing | RTE4 | 2.0 | Semantic relation between words | No formal evaluation. Plays a role in most entailments found |
Cambridge | RTE4 | 3.0 | Meaning postulates from WordNet noun hyponymy, e.g. forall x: cat(x) -> animal(x) | No systematic evaluation |
CERES | RTE4 | 3.0 | Hypernyms, antonyms, indexWords (N,V,Adj,Adv) | Used, but no evaluation performed |
DFKI | RTE4 | 3.0 | Semantic relation between words | No separate evaluation |
DLSIUAES | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
EMORY | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
FbkIrst | RTE4 | 3.0 | Lexical similarity | No precise evaluation of the resource has been carried out. In our second run we used a combined system (EDITSneg + EDITSallbutneg), and we had an improvement of 0.6% in accuracy with respect to the first run in which only EDITSneg was used. EDITSallbutneg exploits lexical similarity (WordNet similarity), but we can’t affirm with precision that the improvement is due only to the use of WordNet |
FSC | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
IIT | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
IPD | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
OAQA | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
QUANTA | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
SAGAN | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
Stanford | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
UAIC | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
UMD | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
UNED | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
Uoeltg | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
UPC | RTE4 | Data taken from the RTE4 proceedings. Participants are recommended to add further information. | ||
AUEB | RTE3 | 2.1 | Synonymy resolution | Replacing the words of H with their synonyms in T: on RTE3 data sets 2% improvement |
UIUC | RTE3 | Semantic distance between words | ||
VENSES | RTE3 | 3.0 | Semantic relation between words | No evaluation of the resource |
New user | Participants are encouraged to contribute. |
Total: 24 |
---|
[*] For further information about participants, click here: RTE Challenges - Data about participants
Return to RTE Knowledge Resources