-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Explain why a subject was matched #19
Comments
LIME could be useful for this: https://github.com/marcotcr/lime/ |
In general, I would like an option both for 'suggest' and for 'eval' that returns the confidence scores for each descriptor and for each document, for evaluation purposes. Not sure if Annif already produces such an output anywhere? |
@annakasprzik This is what the
The third column is the confidence score (between 0.0 and 1.0). Its interpretation varies a bit between the models. For the |
BTW there's a great blog post on the ideas behind LIME, by the authors. |
When Annif returns bad subjects, it can be difficult to understand why they were suggested. An
explain
parameter for the analyze functionality could be used to enable explanation functionality, which would return, for each suggested subject, the text from all of the blocks in the document that contributed to the subject assignment, sorted by their scores (highest score first). This would give at least some kind of idea which parts of the document caused the match.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: