skip to main content
10.1145/3356991.3365470acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Are we there yet?: evaluating state-of-the-art neural network based geoparsers using EUPEG as a benchmarking platform

Published:05 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Geoparsing is an important task in geographic information retrieval. A geoparsing system, known as a geoparser, takes some texts as the input and outputs the recognized place mentions and their location coordinates. In June 2019, a geoparsing competition, Toponym Resolution in Scientific Papers, was held as one of the SemEval 2019 tasks. The winning teams developed neural network based geoparsers that achieved outstanding performances (over 90% precision, recall, and F1 score for toponym recognition). This exciting result brings the question "are we there yet?", namely have we achieved high enough performances to possibly consider the problem of geoparsing as solved? One limitation of this competition is that the developed geoparsers were tested on only one dataset which has 45 research articles collected from the particular domain of Bio-medicine. It is known that the same geoparser can have very different performances on different datasets. Thus, this work performs a systematic evaluation of these state-of-the-art geoparsers using our recently developed benchmarking platform EUPEG that has eight annotated datasets, nine baseline geoparsers, and eight performance metrics. The evaluation result suggests that these new geoparsers indeed improve the performances of geoparsing on multiple datasets although some challenges remain.

References

  1. Beatrice Alex, Claire Grover, Richard Tobin, and Jon Oberlander. 2019. Geoparsing historical and contemporary literary text set in the City of Edinburgh. Language Resources and Evaluation 0, 0 (2019), 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Grant DeLozier, Jason Baldridge, and Loretta London. 2015. Gazetteer-Independent Toponym Resolution Using Geographic Word Profiles. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2382--2388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Milan Gritta, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, and Nigel Collier. 2018. Which Melbourne? Augmenting Geocoding with Maps. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Vol. 1. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1285--1296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Milan Gritta, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nut Limsopatham, and Nigel Collier. 2018. What's missing in geographical parsing? Language Resources and Evaluation 52, 2 (2018), 603--623.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Claire Grover, Richard Tobin, Kate Byrne, Matthew Woollard, James Reid, Stuart Dunn, and Julian Ball. 2010. Use of the Edinburgh geoparser for georeferencing digitized historical collections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368, 1925 (2010), 3875--3889.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yingjie Hu. 2018. EUPEG: Towards an Extensible and Unified Platform for Evaluating Geoparsers. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval (GIR'18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 2 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yiting Ju, Benjamin Adams, Krzysztof Janowicz, Yingjie Hu, Bo Yan, and Grant McKenzie. 2016. Things and strings: improving place name disambiguation from short texts by combining entity co-occurrence with topic modeling. In European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop. Springer, Cham, 353--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Morteza Karimzadeh, Scott Pezanowski, Alan M MacEachren, and Jan O Wallgrün. 2019. GeoTxt: A scalable geoparsing system for unstructured text geolocation. Transactions in GIS 23, 1 (2019), 118--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2016. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 260--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Haonan Li, Minghan Wang, Timothy Baldwin, Martin Tomko, and Maria Vasardani. 2019. UniMelb at SemEval-2019 Task 12: Multi-model combination for toponym resolution. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1313--1318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ludovic Moncla, Walter Renteria-Agualimpia, Javier Nogueras-Iso, and Mauro Gaio. 2014. Geocoding for texts with fine-grain toponyms: an experiment on a geoparsed hiking descriptions corpus. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigspatial international conference on advances in geographic information systems. ACM, Dallas, Texas, 183--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the NAACL-HLT. Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2227--2237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ross S Purves, Paul Clough, Christopher B Jones, Mark H Hall, Vanessa Murdock, et al. 2018. Geographic Information Retrieval: Progress and Challenges in Spatial Search of Text. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 12, 2--3 (2018), 164--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, I. Guyon et al. (Ed.). NIPS Foundation, Inc., San Diego, USA, 5998--6008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Morteza Karimzadeh, Alan M MacEachren, and Scott Pezanowski. 2018. GeoCorpora: building a corpus to test and train microblog geoparsers. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 32, 1 (2018), 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jimin Wang and Yingjie Hu. 2019. Enhancing spatial and textual analysis with EUPEG: an extensible and unified platform for evaluating geoparsers. Transactions in GIS 0, 0 (2019), accepted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Xiaobin Wang, Chunping Ma, Huafei Zheng, Chu Liu, Pengjun Xie, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2019. DM_NLP at SemEval-2018 Task 12: A Pipeline System for Toponym Resolution. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 917--923.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Davy Weissenbacher, Arjun Magge, Karen O'Connor, Matthew Scotch, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2019. Semeval-2019 task 12: Toponym resolution in scientific papers. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 907--916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Davy Weissenbacher, Tasnia Tahsin, Rachel Beard, Mari Figaro, Robert Rivera, Matthew Scotch, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2015. Knowledge-driven geospatial location resolution for phylogeographic models of virus migration. Bioinformatics 31, 12 (2015), i348--i356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A Survey on Recent Advances in Named Entity Recognition from Deep Learning models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 2145--2158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Vikas Yadav, Egoitz Laparra, Ti-Tai Wang, Mihai Surdeanu, and Steven Bethard. 2019. University of arizona at semeval-2019 task 12: Deep-affix named entity recognition of geolocation entities. In Proceedings of the 13th International Work-shop on Semantic Evaluation. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1319--1323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Are we there yet?: evaluating state-of-the-art neural network based geoparsers using EUPEG as a benchmarking platform

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GeoHumanities '19: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Geospatial Humanities
          November 2019
          45 pages
          ISBN:9781450369602
          DOI:10.1145/3356991

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 5 November 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          GeoHumanities '19 Paper Acceptance Rate6of8submissions,75%Overall Acceptance Rate15of21submissions,71%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader