A Methodology for Ontology Evaluation Using Topic Models
Loading...
Links to Files
Author/Creator
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2012-10-25
Type of Work
Department
Program
Citation of Original Publication
Gangopadhyay, Aryya et al.; A Methodology for Ontology Evaluation Using Topic Models; 2012 Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems, 25 October, 2012; https://doi.org/10.1109/iNCoS.2012.42
Rights
This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
Public Domain Mark 1.0
This work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
Public Domain Mark 1.0
This work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
Subjects
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to describe a methodology for objectively evaluating ontologies. Our approach involves randomly partitioning the elements of an ontology into disjoints training and test set respectively, generating topic models on the training set, and evaluating how well the model fits the test set. We have tested our methodology on the Translational Medicine Ontology and collected extensive experimental results. The results include the average perplexity score for the entire ontology as well as those for individual elements. Since our methodology provides a numeric score for an ontology it can be used to compare ontologies. Furthermore, elements with high perplexity scores might indicate that either these do not fit well with the rest of the ontology, or that the descriptions for these elements are inadequate. Different perplexity scores among sibling elements indicate the need to revise the structure of the ontology.