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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2019-09
Main Authors: Kementchedjhieva, Yova, Hartmann, Mareike, Søgaard, Anders
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 &amp; 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