Skip to main content

Table 5 Performance of the "ours+SVM" model with incremental feature sets

From: On the efficacy of per-relation basis performance evaluation for PPI extraction and a high-precision rule-based approach

Min #Inst. per Relation

#Uniq. Relation

#Instances

Methods

Per-Relation

Per-Instance

 

Pos

Neg

Pos

Neg

 

TP

FP

Precision

Recall

F-Score

TP

FP

Precision

Recall

F-Score

1

618

2,312

1,000

4,834

ours+SVM

152

44

0.776

0.246

0.374

172

67

0.720

0.172

0.278

     

+dep. len.

149

35

0.810

0.241

0.371

170

52

0.766

0.170

0.278

     

+dist.

150

39

0.794

0.243

0.372

171

63

0.731

0.171

0.277

     

+both

151

38

0.799

0.244

0.374

173

58

0.749

0.173

0.281

2

197

695

579

2,827

ours+SVM

94

36

0.723

0.477

0.575

116

63

0.648

0.200

0.306

     

+dep. len.

94

32

0.746

0.477

0.582

117

53

0.688

0.202

0.312

     

+dist.

92

35

0.724

0.467

0.568

117

54

0.684

0.202

0.312

     

+both

94

32

0.746

0.477

0.582

116

51

0.695

0.200

0.311

3

89

314

363

1,835

ours+SVM

58

22

0.725

0.652

0.687

78

32

0.709

0.215

0.330

     

+dep. len.

57

22

0.722

0.640

0.679

76

31

0.710

0.209

0.323

     

+dist.

57

22

0.722

0.640

0.679

75

31

0.708

0.207

0.320

     

+both

57

22

0.722

0.640

0.679

76

31

0.710

0.209

0.323

4

51

181

249

1,349

ours+SVM

38

15

0.717

0.745

0.731

55

25

0.688

0.221

0.335

     

+dep. len.

36

13

0.735

0.706

0.720

52

19

0.732

0.209

0.325

     

+dist.

38

15

0.717

0.745

0.731

55

25

0.688

0.221

0.335

     

+both

36

13

0.735

0.706

0.720

52

19

0.732

0.209

0.325

5

28

107

157

984

ours+SVM

25

12

0.676

0.893

0.769

40

18

0.690

0.255

0.372

     

+dep. len.

25

11

0.694

0.893

0.781

40

15

0.727

0.255

0.378

     

+dist.

25

12

0.676

0.893

0.769

40

18

0.690

0.255

0.372

     

+both

25

11

0.694

0.893

0.781

40

15

0.727

0.255

0.378

  1. 1Note that the result shown here is different from the ones reported in [6]. It may be due to the differences in SVM optimization parameters used for the experiments. We obtained the codes from the authors' web page at http://staff.science.uva.nl/ b ̃ ui/PPIs.zip and ran as is with the parameters: RBF kernel gamma - 0.0145; C = 9; Weka Cost-SensitiveClassifier optimization.
  2. 2In [20], the authors reported the macro-averaged precision, recall, and F-score, which are incomparable to other performance results. Following the general convention in PPI research, we compared the performance using the precision, recall and F-score computed with only positive class prediction results. The original implementation was not available. We implemented it on SVM-LIGHT-TK ver 1.2 obtained from http://disi.unitn.it/moschitti/Tree-Kernel.htm. The optimization parameters used are C = 8 and λ = 0.6 (as reported in [20])