AMR Normalization for Fairer Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Meaning Representation (AMR; Banarescu et al., 2013) encodes the meaning of sentences as a directed graph and Smatch (Cai and Knight, 2013) is the primary metric for evaluating AMR graphs. Smatch, however, is unaware of some meaning-equivalent variations in graph structure allowed by the AMR Specification and gives different scores for AMRs exhibiting these variations. In this paper I propose four normalization methods for helping to ensure that conceptually equivalent AMRs are evaluated as equivalent. Equivalent AMRs with and without normalization can look quite different---comparing a gold corpus to itself with relation reification alone yields a difference of 25 Smatch points, suggesting that the outputs of two systems may not be directly comparable without normalization. The algorithms described in this paper are implemented on top of an existing open-source Python toolkit for AMR and will be released under the same license.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1.
3 papers.
- 2024Framing Analysis of Health-Related Narratives: Conspiracy versus Mainstream Media18 Jan 2024
- 2023CAMRA: Copilot for AMR Annotation18 Nov 2023
- 2023SMATCH++: Standardized and Extended Evaluation of Semantic Graphs11 May 2023