Project realized for the course Advanced Human Languages Technologies at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (Master in Artificial Intelligence).
The project consists in solving Task 9 of the Semeval-2013: International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (link to the paper).
The task concerns the recognition of drugs and extraction of drug-drug interactions that appear in biomedical literature. It is divided in two subtasks:
- Task 9.1: Recognition and classification of drugs (NERC).
- Task 9.2: Detection and classification of drug-drug interactions between pairs of drugs (DDI).
The tasks is solved by using 3 different approaches:
- Rule-based approach
- Traditional Machine-Learning approach
- Deep Learning approach
- Assignment_1_AHLT contains the procedures followed to solve Task 9.1 by using the Rule-based approach and the traditional Machine Learning-based approach. The report provides also the main snippets of Python code, together with the obtained final results.
- Assignment_2_AHLT contains the procedures followed to solve Task 9.2 by using the Rule-based approach and the traditional Machine Learning-based approach. The report provides also the main snippets of Python code, together with the obtained final results.
- Assignment_3_AHLT contains the procedurec followed to solve Task 9.1 and Task 9.2 by using the Deep Learning-based approach. The report provides also the main snippets of Python code, together with the obtained final results on both tasks.
Results obtained in the Devel and Test Datasets
Best results:
- Devel set:
- Precision: 76.2%,
- Recall: 68.3%,
- F1: 71.9%
- Test set:
- Precision: 68.8%,
- Recall: 72.8%,
- F1: 69.2%
Below we show the results obtained with each approach.
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set
Best results:
- Devel set:
- Precision: 68.3%,
- Recall: 60.0%,
- F1: 62.9%
- Test set:
- Precision: 58.5%,
- Recall: 62.9%,
- F1: 60.4%
Below we show the results obtained with each approach.
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set
N.B. On the left results obtained on the Devel set, on the right results obtained on the Test set