lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Terry Steichen" <>
Subject Re: Stemmer Benefits/Costs
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:56:32 GMT
So, Andrez - Thank you for your comments - what you say makes a good deal of
sense.  When you have lots of different inflections that all share the same
root, stemming can clearly provide significant (recall) benefits (in terms
of catching hidden words and/or simplifying the query).

However, would you say that "from the perspective of English" ("with its
minimal inflection") the points I raise are correct?  (You seem to say so
with the statement that stemming "usually improves recall, but lowers

And, would you expect significant benefits from the Egothor project code
(versus Snowball/Porter) when the text is in English (as opposed to a highly
inflectional language like Polish)?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrzej Bialecki" <>
To: "Lucene Users List" <>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Stemmer Benefits/Costs

> Terry Steichen wrote:
> > I've been experimenting with the Porter and Snowball stemmers.  It
> > seems to me that one of the most valuable benefits these provide is
> > the capability to generalize phrase terms.  As a very simple example,
> > without the stemmer, I might need to include three phrase terms in my
> > query: "north korea", "north korean", "north koreans".  But with the
> > stemmer only one will suffice.  To me, that's a huge advantage.  (For
> > non-phrases, the advantage doesn't seem to be so great, because much
> > the same effect can be achieved with wildcards.)
> That's because you look at it from the perspective of English language
> with its minimal inflection... My mother tongue is Polish - a highly
> inflectional language from the Slavic family of languages. It is normal
> for a single Polish word to have as many as 20+ different inflected
> forms (plural/singular/dual, tense, gender, mood, case, infinitive...
> enough? ;-) ). For this type of language studies show that stemming (or
> rather lemmatization - bringing words to their base grammatical forms)
> significantly improves recall in IR systems.
> >
> > But there seems to be a price that you also pay, in that
> > discrimination may be adversely affected.  If you want to
> > discriminate between two terms that the stemmer views as derived from
> > the same root, you're out of luck (I think).  The problem with this
> Stemming usually improves recall, but lowers precision. For some systems
> it is more desirable to provide any results, even if they are not quite
> correct, than to provide none.
> > is that you may start with a set of terms that don't have this
> > problem, but over time as new content is added to the index, such
> > problems may gradually get introduced - often unpredictably.  And to
> > the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, once you've indexed
> > using a stemmer, there's no way to override it in specific instances.
> You can always store in your index stemmed/non-stemmed terms alongside.
> >
> > Appreciate any comments, thoughts on the above.
> For highly-inflectional languages I had _very_ good results with
> stemmers built using the code from Egothor project
> ( - much more sophisticated than simple
> rule-based stemmers like Snowball or Porter. In fact, after proper
> training on a large corpus I was getting ~70% of correct lemmas for
> previously unseen words, and over 90% of correct (unique) stems.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Andrzej Bialecki
> -------------------------------------------------
> Software Architect, System Integration Specialist
> CEN/ISSS EC Workshop, ECIMF project chair
> EU FP6 E-Commerce Expert/Evaluator
> -------------------------------------------------
> FreeBSD developer (
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message