The Similarity Jury: Combining expert judgements on geographic concepts

Abstract

A cognitively plausible measure of semantic similarity between geographic concepts is valuable across several areas, including geographic information retrieval, data mining, and ontology alignment. Semantic similarity measures are not intrinsically right or wrong, but obtain a certain degree of cognitive plausibility in the context of a given application. A similarity measure can therefore be seen as a domain expert summoned to judge the similarity of a pair of concepts according to her subjective set of beliefs, perceptions, hypotheses, and epistemic biases. Following this analogy, we first define the similarity jury as a panel of experts having to reach a decision on the semantic similarity of a set of geographic concepts. Second, we have conducted an evaluation of 8 WordNet-based semantic similarity measures on a subset of OpenStreetMap geographic concepts. This empirical evidence indicates that a jury tends to perform better than individual experts, but the best expert often outperforms the jury. In some cases, the jury obtains higher cognitive plausibility than its best expert.