arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2002.06914cs.LGstat.ML

论基于排名的实体对齐或链接预测方法评估的模糊性

On the Ambiguity of Rank-Based Evaluation of Entity Alignment or Link Prediction Methods

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München(慕尼黑大学);Technical University of Denmark(丹麦技术大学);Siemens AG(西门子股份公司)

Max Berrendorf, Evgeniy Faerman, Laurent Vermue, Volker Tresp

AI总结:

本文揭示了链接预测与实体对齐任务中基于排名的评估度量在跨数据集比较和测试集大小变化下存在的模糊性问题,并提出调整方案以实现公平、可比且可解释的模型性能评估。

摘要:

在这项工作中,我们更仔细地审视了两类用于从知识图谱中丰富信息的方法的评估:链接预测和实体对齐。在当前的实验设置中,采用了多种不同的分数来评估模型性能的不同方面。我们分析了这些评估度量的信息量,并指出了若干不足之处。特别是,我们证明了所有现有的分数几乎无法用于跨不同数据集的结果比较。此外,我们证明了在实体对齐任务中,基于常用度量,测试集大小的变化会自动对同一模型的性能产生影响。我们表明,这会导致结果解释中的各种问题,从而可能支持误导性的结论。因此,我们提出了对评估的调整,并通过实验证明了这如何支持对模型性能进行公平、可比和可解释的评估。我们的代码可在 https://github.com/mberr/rank-based-evaluation 获取。

英文摘要:

In this work, we take a closer look at the evaluation of two families of methods for enriching information from knowledge graphs: Link Prediction and Entity Alignment. In the current experimental setting, multiple different scores are employed to assess different aspects of model performance. We analyze the informativeness of these evaluation measures and identify several shortcomings. In particular, we demonstrate that all existing scores can hardly be used to compare results across different datasets. Moreover, we demonstrate that varying size of the test size automatically has impact on the performance of the same model based on commonly used metrics for the Entity Alignment task. We show that this leads to various problems in the interpretation of results, which may support misleading conclusions. Therefore, we propose adjustments to the evaluation and demonstrate empirically how this supports a fair, comparable, and interpretable assessment of model performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/mberr/rank-based-evaluation.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑