1. Project 3 CS652 Information Extraction and Information Integration

2. Project3 Presented by: Reema Al-Kamha

3. Results Name Matcher 1) Base Line: 2) Improvements: TSPR Facultycornellberkeley11 texasberkeley11 CourseRicereed 1 9/11 uwmreed 1 4/8 Adding many synonyms for the word. TSPR Facultycornellberkeley11 texasberkeley11 CourseRicereed 11 uwmreed 11

4. Results NB Model 1)Base Line: I treated the continents of each row as one token. 2)Improvements: TSPR Facultycornellberkeley11/10 texasberkeley12/10 CourseRicereed 11/11 uwmreed 12/8 TSPR Facultycornellberkeley16/10 texasberkeley16/10 CourseRicereed 16/11 uwmreed 1/55/8 Combin ation TSPR Facultycornellberkeley16/10 texasberkeley16/10 CourseRicereed 11/11 uwmreed 12/8

5. Comments I do not figure out how to distinguish start _time and end_time. I parse each row in XML to tokens. I got ride from all stop words (also got ride from.,;#.in vocabulary vector I get ride from suffix like Introduction to Intro. I do not insert the files that are in source but not in target. Sometimes I extract the key words in the documents and treat the document as if it only contains these words like in ward attribute. For some files attributes like code Attribute, I separate the numeric part from the letter part to let the code match subject in course application, and then I drop the numeric part. I had a lot of difficulties in using Java for this project because it was very slow.

6. Muhammed Al-Muhammed Two schema matching techniques were implemented, Name-matching and NB in Java. In general the type of the data help in achieving a good matching results. Two improvements done. More in the conclusion.

7. Name Matching applicationtargetsourcerecallprecisionF-M CourseWashingtonReed8/12 9/12 * 100%80.3% 85.7% courseWSUReed6/16 13/16 100%55% 89.3% FacultyWashingtonBerkeley10/10 100% facultyMichiganBerkeley10/10 100% * After doing some improvement

8. NB applicationTargetSourceRecallPrecisionF-M CourseWashingtonReed6/12 8/12 85.7 * % 100% 62.9% 79.5% CourseWSUReed9/16 100% 72.1% FacultyWashingtonBerkeley7/10 9/10 87.5% 90% 78.02% 90% facultyMichiganBerkeley7/10 9/10 87.5% 90% 78.02% 90% *One element wrongly mapped to different one

9. conclusions In general NB is better than NM Two small improvements - Numerical ratio for the name matching - Building expected patterns for the data. “ help in improving NB matching” Combining the two methods was helpful but the results still not significant enough to argue for the combination.

10. Tim – Project 3 Results Name Matcher Improvements Word Similarity Function –Convert to lower case –Combine: Levenshtien edit distance – normalized to give % similar_text() – % of characters the same –Soundex –Longest Common Subsequence Checks for substring Normalized to give %

11. Naïve Bayes Improvements Classify data instances –Use regular expession classifiers –24 general classes Correspond to datatypes No domain specific classes long_string, small_int, big_int, short_all_caps, med_all_caps, init_cap, init_caps, …, short_string –Used only Course data to create REs

12. Course Results Domain: Course Test 1Test 2All 10 Tests (%) PRPRPRF Name Matcher Base8/88/97/77/91008391 Naïve Bayes Base3/9 5/9 48 Combined3/33/94/44/91004158 Name Macher Improved9/9 999798 Naïve Bayes Improved5/9 7/9 57 Combined9/9 97

13. Faculty Results Domain: Faculty Test 1Test 2All 10 Tests (%) PRPRPRF Name Matcher Base10/10 100 Naïve Bayes Base3/10 30 Combined3/33/103/33/101003046 Name Macher Improved10/10 100 Naïve Bayes Improved5/10 8/10 73 Combined10/10 100

14. Schema Matching Helen Chen CS652 Project 3 06/14/2002

15. Results from Name Matcher ApplicationTargetSource# of Attr. # of missing Attr. MatchedRecallPrecision Coursewshuwm12111 (8)*11/11 Coursewsuuwm1679 (8)*9/9 Facultywshtexas100 10/10 Facultymchtexas100 10/10 * The number in () is the # of matched before improvement

16. Results from Naïve Bayes ApplicationTargetSource# of Attr.# of Missing Attr. RecallPrecision Coursewshuwm1215/11 Coursewsuuwm1675/9 Facultywshtexas1005/105/7 Facultymchtexas1005/105/7

17. Comments Name matcher works fine in the given two domains with appropriate dictionary –Add stemming words, synonyms, etc. in the dictionary, make the words case insensitive Naïve Bayes is not a good schema matching method in the given domains –Use words instead of tuples as token –Use thesaurus (count stemming words and synonyms as one token, ignore cases) Improvements can be done –Use value characteristics ( String length, numeric ratio, space ratio) –Use Ontology

18. Yihong’s Project 3 Course Domain: –Rice, 11  Washington, 12; (11/11 directly mapped) –Rice, 11  WSU, 16; (9/11 directly mapped, 1/11 indirectly mapped, 1/11 not mapped) Faculty Domain –Cornell, 10  Washington, 10; (10/10 directly mapped) –Cornell, 10  Michigan, 10; (10/10 directly mapped)

19. Name Matcher Base line situation –Synonym list for each attribute name by training –Add most common synonyms and abbreviations –Compare with case-insensitive Improvement situation –Add more synonyms using WordNet –String similarity computation –Add a new category as “UNKNOWN”

20. Naïve Bayes Base line situation –Each entry in Raw_text as a training unit Improvement situation –Remove stopwords –Cluster special strings –String similarity computation –Add a new category as “UNKNOWN” –Training size experiment

21. Results Conclusion Course DomainFaculty Domain Rice  Washington Rice  WSU Cornell  Washington Cornell  Michigan P (11/11) R (11/11) P (11/11) R (9/9) P (10/10) R (10/10) P (10/10) R (10/10) Name Matcher Base Line 8/11 8/910/10 Naïve Bayes Base Line 3/11 3/93/10 Combined 8/11 8/910/10 Name Matcher Improved 11/11 10/11 * 9/910/10 Naïve Bayes Improved 6/11 6/11 * 6/97/10 8/10 Combined 11/11 10/11 * 9/910/10 Combination: random selection weighted by experimental accuracies

22. David Marble CS 652 Project 3

23. Baseline Results Name MatcherWSU Michigan SOURCEPR PR Reed0.58 Berkeley1.00 Rice0.73 Cornell1.00 Naïve Bayes SOURCEPR PR Reed0.42 Berkeley0.45 Rice0.45 Cornell0.45 Combined SOURCEPR PR Reed0.17 Berkeley0.45 Rice0.27 Cornell0.45

24. Improved Results NB: Improved precision by tokenizing, separating text/numbers, removing leading 0’s in numbers. Name Matcher: Word Stemming. Name Matcher WSU Michigan SOURCEPR PR Reed0.83 Berkeley1.00 Rice0.82 Cornell1.00 Naïve Bayes SOURCEPR PR Reed0.580.75Berkeley0.73 Rice0.640.73Cornell0.73 Best of Both SOURCEPR PR Reed0.92 Berkeley1.00 Rice0.91 Cornell1.00

25. Comments WSU happened to be the “weird” one. –Building names completely different –Faculty with odd last names, only a few first names matched (not a lot of training names) Telephone #’s only matched when changing digits to “digit” instead of value. Start time, end time dilemma – why can’t schools run their schedule like BYU?

26. Craig Parker

27. Baseline Results Course 1 –Recall =.6 –Precision = 1 Course 1 –Recall =.66 –Precision = 1 Faculty –Recall =.8 –Precision = 1

28. Modified Results Course 1 –Recall =.7 –Precision = 1 Course 1 –Recall =.78 –Precision = 1 Faculty –Recall =.8 –Precision = 1

29. Discussion Modification of Name Matching involved a number of substring comparisons. Modifications improved results for both Course tests. Modifications did not change results for Faculty tests. Naïve Bayesian Classifier not well suited for all types of data (buildings, sections, phone numbers)

30. Schema Matching results Lars Olson

31. Baseline test data Test 1 (Course: Washington  Reed) –R = 3/9 (33%), P = 3/3 (100%) –room, title, days Test 2 (Course: Washington  Rice) –R = 4/9 (44%), P = 4/4 (100%) –room, credits, title, days Test 3 (Faculty: Washington  Berkley) –R = 8/10 (80%), P = 8/8 (100%) –name, research, degrees, fac_title, award, year, building, title Test 4 (Faculty: Washington  Cornell) (identical to Test 3)

32. After Improvements Test 1 (Course: Washington  Reed) –Name matcher: R = 8/9 (89%), P = 8/8 (100%) (missed schedule_line  reg_num) –Bayes: R = 4/9 (44%), P = 4/12 (33%) (also missed schedule_line) Test 2 (Course: Washington  Rice) –Name matcher: R = 9/9 (100%), P = 9/9 (100%) –Bayes: R = 4/9 (44%), P = 4/12 (33%) Test 3 (Faculty: Washington  Berkley | Cornell) –Name matcher: R = 10/10 (100%), P = 10/10 (100%) –Bayes: R = 8/10 (80%), P = 8/10 (80%)

33. Comments Improvements made: –Name matcher: Remove all symbols (e.g. ‘_’) from string Build thesaurus based on training set –Bayes learner: Attempt 1: classify all numbers together Attempt 2: replace all digits with ‘#’ Idea: FSA tokenizer (to recognize phone numbers ###  ####, times ##:##) Difficulties: –What are the correct matches? (e.g. restrictions  comments) –Aggregate matches were not included in recall measures

34. Jeff Roth Project 3

35. Basic Results Course - Target = Reed Training = Rice, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Naïve Bayes: 7 / 12 correct, 6 / 16 FP Name Classifier: 12 / 15 correct, 0 / 19 FP Faculty - Target = Berkley Training = Cornell, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Naïve Bayes: 6 / 10 correct, 3 / 10 FP Name Classifier: 14 / 14 correct, 0 / 14 FP Course - Target = Rice Training = Reed, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Naïve Bayes: 7 / 10 * correct, 5 / 16 FP Name Classifier: 12 / 13 correct, 0 / 19 FP Faculty - Target = Cornell Training = Berkley, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Naïve Bayes: 5 / 10 correct, 3 / 10 FP Name Classifier: 14 / 14 correct, 0 / 14 FP

36. “Improved” Naïve Bayes Course - Target = Reed Training = Rice, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Naïve Bayes: 7 / 12 correct, 7 / 16 FP Faculty - Target = Berkley Training = Cornell, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Naïve Bayes: 6 / 10 correct, 3 / 10 FP Course - Target = Rice Training = Reed, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Naïve Bayes: 7 / 10 * correct, 5 / 16 FP Faculty - Target = Cornell Training = Berkley, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Naïve Bayes: 5 / 10 correct, 3 / 10 FP Improvements: 1. Classification = argmax (Log(P(v j ) + Σ log(P(a i | v j ))) - included in basic 2. If a word in classification doc has no match, classification = 1 / (2 * |vocabulary|) - no help 3. Divide by number of words in test doc and find global max - scratched

37. Combination Course - Target = Reed Training = Rice, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Name Classifier: 13 / 15 correct, 0 / 19 FP Faculty - Target = Berkley Training = Cornell, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Name Classifier: 14 / 14 correct, 0 / 14 FP Course - Target = Rice Training = Reed, uwm, Washington Source = wsu Name Classifier: 12 / 13 correct, 0 / 19 FP Faculty - Target = Cornell Training = Berkley, Texas, Washington Source = Michigan Name Classifier: 14 / 14 correct, 0 / 14 FP Combination algorithm: 1. Match source to target if both Naïve Bayes and name matcher agreed 2. Match remaining unmatched target elements to source by name matcher 3. Match any remaining unmatched target elements to source by Naïve Bayes

38. Schema Matching by Using Name Matcher and Naïve Bayesian Classifier (NB) Cui Tao CS652 Project 3

39. Name Matcher ApplicationMappingPrecisionRecall Course UWM  Washington 9/9 WSU  Washington 9/9 Faculty Texas  Washington 10/10 Michigan  Washington 10/10 Tokenization of names SectionNr  Section, Nr; Start_time  Start, time Expansion of short-forms, acronyms nr  number, bldg  building, rm  room, sect  section crse or crs  course Thesaurus of synonyms, hypernyms, acronyms Nr  Code, restriction  limit, etc Ignore cases Heuristic name matching (Cupid)Heuristic name matching (Cupid)

40. Naïve Bayesian Classifier Improvement: –Use tokens instead of tuples Name: –“Richard Anderson”, “Thomas Anderson”, “Thomas F. Coleman”; – “Thomas”, “Richard”, “Anderson”, “F.”, “Coleman”. Building, degree, research, etc –Eliminate stopwords –Stemming words: shared substring at least 80% long in the whole word –Ignore case Problems: – Names, building, etc – Numbers: room, time, code – Keyword confusions: research, award, title – Different systems: room, section number, etc – Phone numbers (Can not match by NB, but easy to find the match by using pattern recognition) ApplicationMappingPrecisionRecall Course UWM  Washington 5/105/9 WSU  Washington 6/76/9 Faculty Texas  Washington 8/88/10 Michigan  Washington 8/88/10

41. Conclusion Combine them together: –How: conflict  follow name matcher –Result: all 100% Name matcher: works better for this application NB: may work better in indirect mappings

42. Project 3: Schema Matching Alan Wessman

43. Baseline Results Course test set: UWM Faculty test set: Texas

44. Improved Results Name matcher improvements: Lower case, trim whitespace Remove vowels Match if exact, prefix, or edit distance = 1 Naïve Bayes improvements: Lower case, trim whitespace Consider only first 80 chars Consider only first alphanumeric token in string

45. Commentary Improved name matcher effective –But performance decreases if too general Naïve Bayes not very useful –Fails when different attributes have similar values (start_time, end_time, room, section_num) –Fails when same attribute has different values or formats across data sources (room, comments) “Sophisticated” string classifier for NB failed miserably; worse than baseline so I threw it out!

46. CS 652 Project #3 Schema Element Mapping -- By Yuanqiu (Joe) Zhou Applicatoin Target Schema Num of Target Elements Source Schema Num of Source Elements Num of expected mapping RecallPrecision CourseUWM15WSU16106/106/13 CourseWashington12WSU16107/107/13 FacultyTexas10Michigan10 8/10 FacultyWashingotn10Michigan10 8/10 Base Line Experimental Results

47. CS 652 Project #3 Schema Element Mapping -- By Yuanqiu (Joe) Zhou Improvement (at least tried)  Name Matcher  Using simple text transformation functions, such as sub-string, prefix and abbreviation  NB Classifier  Positive Word Density ( does work at all,  )  Regular expressions for common data types, such as time, small integers and large integers  Combination  Favor name matcher over NB classifier  NB classifier can be used to break the tie by name matcher (such as sect  section, sect  section_note)

48. CS 652 Project #3 Schema Element Mapping -- By Yuanqiu (Joe) Zhou Applicatoin Target Schema Num of Target Elements Source Schema Num of Source Elements Num of expected mapping Recall Precisio n CourseUWM15WSU161010/10 CourseWash12WSU161010/10 FacultyTexas10Michigan10 10/10 FacultyWash10Michigan10 10/10 Experimental Results with Improvements

49. CS 652 Project #3 Schema Element Mapping -- By Yuanqiu (Joe) Zhou High precisions and recalls result mostly from improvements to Name Match Improvements to NB classifier did not contribute too much (only correct one missed mapping for one course application) NB classifier is not suited to distinguish the elements with similar data type (such as time and number) or the elements sharing many common values Reducing the size of training data can achieve the same precision and recall with less running time Comments