Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning - ICML '05 2005
DOI: 10.1145/1102351.1102395
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating machine learning for information extraction

Abstract: Comparative evaluation of Machine Learning (ML) systems used for Information Extraction (IE) has suffered from various inconsistencies in experimental procedures. This paper reports on the results of the Pascal Challenge on Evaluating Machine Learning for Information Extraction, which provides a standardised corpus, set of tasks, and evaluation methodology. The challenge is described and the systems submitted by the ten participants are briefly introduced and their performance is analysed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The highest values are 10, very rarely 15 [7,8]. Note that a window size of n means to take into account information about 2n + 1 words.…”
Section: Windowingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The highest values are 10, very rarely 15 [7,8]. Note that a window size of n means to take into account information about 2n + 1 words.…”
Section: Windowingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Support Vector Machines have shown to be very suitable for information extraction and are widely used in recent systems [5,14,15,8,7,9,10]. A number of advantages qualify them in order to be used for information extraction:…”
Section: Selection Of the Classification Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The only compulsory task is task1, which used 400 annotated documents for training and other 200 annotated documents for testing. See Ireson and Ciravegna (2005) for a short overview of the challenge. The learning methods explored by the participating systems included LP 2 , HMM, CRF, SVM, and a variety of combinations Table 2: Comparison to other systems on the jobs corpus: F 1 (%) on each entity type and overall performance as macro-averaged F 1 .…”
Section: Comparison To Other Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…of different learning algorithms. Firstly, the system of the challenge organisers, which is based on LP 2 obtained the best result for Task1, followed by one of our participating systems which combined the uneven margins SVM and PAUM (see Ireson and Ciravegna (2005)). Our SVM and PAUM systems on their own were respectively in the fourth and fifth position among the 20 participating systems.…”
Section: Comparison To Other Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%