Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1704.00045

Comparison of ontology alignment systems across single matching task via the McNemar's test

Majid Mohammadi·Amir Ahooye Atashin·Wout Hofman·Yao-Hua Tan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Ontology alignment is widely-used to find the correspondences between different ontologies in diverse fields.After discovering the alignments,several performance scores are available to evaluate them.The scores typically require the identified alignment and a reference containing the underlying actual correspondences of the given ontologies.The current trend in the alignment evaluation is to put forward a new score(e.g., precision, weighted precision, etc.)and to compare various alignments by juxtaposing the obtained scores. However,it is substantially provocative to select one measure among others for comparison.On top of that, claiming if one system has a better performance than one another cannot be substantiated solely by comparing two scalars.In this paper,we propose the statistical procedures which enable us to theoretically favor one system over one another.The McNemar's test is the statistical means by which the comparison of two ontology alignment systems over one matching task is drawn.The test applies to a 2x2 contingency table which can be constructed in two different ways based on the alignments,each of which has their own merits/pitfalls.The ways of the contingency table construction and various apposite statistics from the McNemar's test are elaborated in minute detail.In the case of having more than two alignment systems for comparison, the family-wise error rate is expected to happen. Thus, the ways of preventing such an error are also discussed.A directed graph visualizes the outcome of the McNemar's test in the presence of multiple alignment systems.From this graph, it is readily understood if one system is better than one another or if their differences are imperceptible.The proposed statistical methodologies are applied to the systems participated in the OAEI 2016 anatomy track, and also compares several well-known similarity metrics for the same matching problem.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Majid Mohammadi, Amir Ahooye Atashin, Wout Hofman, Yao-Hua Tan. 2017-03-29. Comparison of ontology alignment systems across single matching task via the McNemar's test. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00045

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗