Testing the fall-through algorithm

library(morphemepiece)
library(dplyr)

This vignette is developer-focused, and outlines an example process for evaluating different (versions of) fall-through algorithms for the morphemepiece tokenizer. The basic approach is...

# These are local paths for illustration purposes
vocab_path <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_vocab_large.txt"
lookup_path <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_lookup_large.txt"
# We will be interested in words that are in the large lookup, but not the small
# one (as a proxy for the most common words that will hit the fallthrough
# algorithm).
lookup_path_small <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_lookup_small.txt"

mp_vocab <- load_or_retrieve_vocab(vocab_path)
mp_lookup <- load_or_retrieve_lookup(lookup_path)
mp_lookup_small <- load_or_retrieve_lookup(lookup_path_small)

Obtain the words, and process...

breakdown1 <- list()
breakdown2 <- list()
words_to_do <- setdiff(names(mp_lookup), names(mp_lookup_small))
# It takes about an hour to do all words in this set.
for (word in words_to_do) {
  bd1 <- morphemepiece:::.mp_tokenize_word_bidir(word, 
                                                 mp_vocab, 
                                                 allow_compounds = FALSE)
  bd2 <- morphemepiece:::.mp_tokenize_word_bidir(word, 
                                                 mp_vocab, 
                                                 allow_compounds = TRUE)
  breakdown1 <- append(breakdown1, paste0(bd1, collapse = " "))
  breakdown2 <- append(breakdown2, paste0(bd2, collapse = " "))
}

actual_bd <- mp_lookup[words_to_do]
wdtbl <- dplyr::tibble(words_to_do, actual_bd, bd1 = unlist(breakdown1), bd2 = unlist(breakdown2))

calc_score <- function(bd0, bd) {
  bd0 <- stringr::str_split(bd0, " ", simplify = FALSE)
  bd <- stringr::str_split(bd, " ", simplify = FALSE)
  bd0 <- purrr::map(bd0, function(b) {b[b != "##"]} )
  bd <- purrr::map(bd, function(b) {b[b != "##"]} )

  purrr::map2_dbl(bd0, bd, function(a, b) {
    re <- mean(a %in% b)
    pr <- mean(b %in% a)
    if (re == 0 & pr == 0) {
      return(0)
    }
    f1 <- 2*re*pr / (re + pr)
    return(f1)
    })
}


scored <- wdtbl %>% 
  # The filter helps focus on the difference between the two algorithms.
  # To measure absolute performance, we'd take out this filter.
  filter(bd1 != bd2) %>% 
  mutate(score1 = calc_score(actual_bd, bd1)) %>% 
  mutate(score2 = calc_score(actual_bd, bd2))

# what was the mean score of each algorithm? (1=old, 2=new)
mean(scored$score1) # 0.3717737
mean(scored$score2) # 0.4134288

# what fraction of words did each algorithm score 100% on?
mean(scored$score1 == 1) # 0.03477313
mean(scored$score2 == 1) # 0.1674262

# what fraction of words did each algorithm score 0% on?
mean(scored$score1 == 0) # 0.1803051
mean(scored$score2 == 0) # 0.2317713

# in what fraction of cases was the old or new algorithm strictly better?
scored %>% 
  mutate(old_better = score1 > score2) %>% 
  mutate(new_better = score1 < score2) %>% 
  summarize(mean(old_better), mean(new_better))

# # A tibble: 1 x 2
#   `mean(old_better)` `mean(new_better)`
#                <dbl>              <dbl>
# 1              0.343              0.536

By almost all measures, the new algorithm gives breakdowns closer to "correct" than the old one. However, the new algorithm scores 0 more often than the old, so the comparison isn't completely one-sided.

mirror server hosted at Truenetwork, Russian Federation.