andras/great-ai
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests 1 Projects Releases 4 Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Deployed b2c76c7 with MkDocs version: 1.3.1

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
2022-08-23 15:38:55 +00:00
parent c767efef3d
commit 8fbe75890e
22 changed files with 1040 additions and 50 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
thesis/chapters/5_cases/naive-bayes.tex
View file

@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ When this model is applied to the \textit{test} split of MAG, we get the confusi
It is, of course, not entirely surprising that the sophisticated transformer architecture of SciBERT is not necessary for a straightforward task like this. Apart from phrases, the relations between separate words of a sentence do not carry nearly as much discriminative power as the identity of the terms \cite{hand2001idiot}; hence, there is little reason for using an attention mechanism. The fact that SciBERT even works in any way on this task is already a testament to its general applicability. Nevertheless, this short experiment has proved that we can safely opt for using MNB for production.
Since Multinomial Naïve Bayes is best at returning a single label and SSC has multiple labels per datapoint: for evaluation purposes, it is checked whether the returned label is contained in the labels of the ground truth. On this dataset, MNB achieves a lower macro-average F1-score of 0.59.\footnote{The code for this is available at \href{https://great-ai.scoutinscience.com/examples/simple/deploy}{great-ai.scoutinscience.com/examples/simple/deploy}.} The weighted-average F1 is 0.70, and the overall accuracy is also 70\%. The substantial difference between the macro and weighted averages comes from the unbalanced distribution of the labels.
Since Multinomial Naïve Bayes is best at returning a single label and SSC has multiple labels per datapoint: for evaluation purposes, it is checked whether the returned label is contained in the labels of the ground truth. On this dataset, MNB achieves a lower macro-average than on MAG, with F1-score of 0.59.\footnote{The code for this is available at \href{https://great-ai.scoutinscience.com/examples/simple/deploy}{great-ai.scoutinscience.com/examples/simple/deploy}.} The weighted-average F1 is 0.70, and the overall accuracy is also 70\%. The substantial difference between the macro and weighted averages comes from the unbalanced distribution of the labels.
The lower F1-score is not surprising because this dataset has more than twice as many classes. Additionally, the mistakes made are defensible when we look at Figure \ref{fig:ss-confusion}: most of them are between close or related classes.