Loading…
Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction
The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this...
Saved in:
Published in: | arXiv.org 2019-09 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | arXiv.org |
container_volume | |
creator | Kementchedjhieva, Yova Hartmann, Mareike Søgaard, Anders |
description | The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this dataset, with concerning findings: (1) a quarter of the data consists of proper nouns, which can be hardly indicative of BDI performance, and (2) there are pervasive gaps in the gold-standard targets. These issues appear to affect the ranking between cross-lingual embedding systems on individual languages, and the overall degree to which the systems differ in performance. With proper nouns removed from the data, the margin between the top two systems included in the study grows from 3.4% to 17.2%. Manual verification of the predictions, on the other hand, reveals that gaps in the gold standard targets artificially inflate the margin between the two systems on English to Bulgarian BDI from 0.1% to 6.7%. We thus suggest that future research either avoids drawing conclusions from quantitative results on this BDI dataset, or accompanies such evaluation with rigorous error analysis. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2290227465</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290227465</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_22902274653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNissKwjAUBYMgWLT_cMF1Id70oS6rFYW6c19Cm2pqTDRpBP_eKn6Aq-HMmREJkLFFtIwRJyR0rqOUYpphkrCAlKVxPUgNxZMrz3tp9BqO0inBG6nPkAtdX27cXh20xkIu1WA9V7CV9Sfm9gUH3fjvmJFxy5UT4Y9TMt8Vp80-ulvz8ML1VWe81cNVIa4oYhanCfuvegNGhT2G</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290227465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Kementchedjhieva, Yova ; Hartmann, Mareike ; Søgaard, Anders</creator><creatorcontrib>Kementchedjhieva, Yova ; Hartmann, Mareike ; Søgaard, Anders</creatorcontrib><description>The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this dataset, with concerning findings: (1) a quarter of the data consists of proper nouns, which can be hardly indicative of BDI performance, and (2) there are pervasive gaps in the gold-standard targets. These issues appear to affect the ranking between cross-lingual embedding systems on individual languages, and the overall degree to which the systems differ in performance. With proper nouns removed from the data, the margin between the top two systems included in the study grows from 3.4% to 17.2%. Manual verification of the predictions, on the other hand, reveals that gaps in the gold standard targets artificially inflate the margin between the two systems on English to Bulgarian BDI from 0.1% to 6.7%. We thus suggest that future research either avoids drawing conclusions from quantitative results on this BDI dataset, or accompanies such evaluation with rigorous error analysis.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Bilingualism ; Datasets ; Dictionaries ; Embedded systems ; Error analysis ; Languages ; Test sets</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2019-09</ispartof><rights>2019. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2290227465?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>776,780,25732,36991,44569</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kementchedjhieva, Yova</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Mareike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Søgaard, Anders</creatorcontrib><title>Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this dataset, with concerning findings: (1) a quarter of the data consists of proper nouns, which can be hardly indicative of BDI performance, and (2) there are pervasive gaps in the gold-standard targets. These issues appear to affect the ranking between cross-lingual embedding systems on individual languages, and the overall degree to which the systems differ in performance. With proper nouns removed from the data, the margin between the top two systems included in the study grows from 3.4% to 17.2%. Manual verification of the predictions, on the other hand, reveals that gaps in the gold standard targets artificially inflate the margin between the two systems on English to Bulgarian BDI from 0.1% to 6.7%. We thus suggest that future research either avoids drawing conclusions from quantitative results on this BDI dataset, or accompanies such evaluation with rigorous error analysis.</description><subject>Bilingualism</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Dictionaries</subject><subject>Embedded systems</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Languages</subject><subject>Test sets</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNqNissKwjAUBYMgWLT_cMF1Id70oS6rFYW6c19Cm2pqTDRpBP_eKn6Aq-HMmREJkLFFtIwRJyR0rqOUYpphkrCAlKVxPUgNxZMrz3tp9BqO0inBG6nPkAtdX27cXh20xkIu1WA9V7CV9Sfm9gUH3fjvmJFxy5UT4Y9TMt8Vp80-ulvz8ML1VWe81cNVIa4oYhanCfuvegNGhT2G</recordid><startdate>20190918</startdate><enddate>20190918</enddate><creator>Kementchedjhieva, Yova</creator><creator>Hartmann, Mareike</creator><creator>Søgaard, Anders</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190918</creationdate><title>Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction</title><author>Kementchedjhieva, Yova ; Hartmann, Mareike ; Søgaard, Anders</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_22902274653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Bilingualism</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Dictionaries</topic><topic>Embedded systems</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Languages</topic><topic>Test sets</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kementchedjhieva, Yova</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Mareike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Søgaard, Anders</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kementchedjhieva, Yova</au><au>Hartmann, Mareike</au><au>Søgaard, Anders</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2019-09-18</date><risdate>2019</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this dataset, with concerning findings: (1) a quarter of the data consists of proper nouns, which can be hardly indicative of BDI performance, and (2) there are pervasive gaps in the gold-standard targets. These issues appear to affect the ranking between cross-lingual embedding systems on individual languages, and the overall degree to which the systems differ in performance. With proper nouns removed from the data, the margin between the top two systems included in the study grows from 3.4% to 17.2%. Manual verification of the predictions, on the other hand, reveals that gaps in the gold standard targets artificially inflate the margin between the two systems on English to Bulgarian BDI from 0.1% to 6.7%. We thus suggest that future research either avoids drawing conclusions from quantitative results on this BDI dataset, or accompanies such evaluation with rigorous error analysis.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | EISSN: 2331-8422 |
ispartof | arXiv.org, 2019-09 |
issn | 2331-8422 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2290227465 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database |
subjects | Bilingualism Datasets Dictionaries Embedded systems Error analysis Languages Test sets |
title | Lost in Evaluation: Misleading Benchmarks for Bilingual Dictionary Induction |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T04%3A47%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Lost%20in%20Evaluation:%20Misleading%20Benchmarks%20for%20Bilingual%20Dictionary%20Induction&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Kementchedjhieva,%20Yova&rft.date=2019-09-18&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2290227465%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_22902274653%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2290227465&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |