Paper detail

A statistical significance testing approach for measuring term burstiness with applications to domain-specific terminology extraction

A term in a corpus is said to be ``bursty'' (or overdispersed) when its occurrences are concentrated in few out of many documents. In this paper, we propose Residual Inverse Collection Frequency (RICF), a statistical significance test inspired heuristic for quantifying term burstiness. The chi-squared test is, to our knowledge, the sole test of statistical significance among existing term burstiness measures. Chi-squared test term burstiness scores are computed from the collection frequency statistic (i.e., the proportion that a specified term constitutes in relation to all terms within a corpus). However, the document frequency of a term (i.e., the proportion of documents within a corpus in which a specific term occurs) is exploited by certain other widely used term burstiness measures. RICF addresses this shortcoming of the chi-squared test by virtue of its term burstiness scores systematically incorporating both the collection frequency and document frequency statistics. We evaluate the RICF measure on a domain-specific technical terminology extraction task using the GENIA Term corpus benchmark, which comprises 2,000 annotated biomedical article abstracts. RICF generally outperformed the chi-squared test in terms of precision at k score with percent improvements of 0.00% (P@10), 6.38% (P@50), 6.38% (P@100), 2.27% (P@500), 2.61% (P@1000), and 1.90% (P@5000). Furthermore, RICF performance was competitive with the performances of other well-established measures of term burstiness. Based on these findings, we consider our contributions in this paper as a promising starting point for future exploration in leveraging statistical significance testing in text analysis.

preprint2024arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.