# Uncertainty in Automated Ontology Matching: Lessons from an Empirical Evaluation
## 5 Case Study: Spatio-Temporal Alignment of Indicators
### Experimental Results
#### 5.3.1 Disambiguation  
Tables 3 and 4 present resulting disambiguated alignments and trimmed alignments, respectively. Additionally, in Table 5, we report the resulting trimmed and disambiguated alignments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Exp.** & **Tool** & \(\mathcal{R}\)\({}^{\dagger}\) & \(\mathcal{A}\)\({}^{\ddagger}\) & _Amb_\(\lx@sectionsign\) & _Precision_ & _Recall_ & _F-Measure_ & _Overall_ & _Ambiguity_ \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 1**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{267} & 212 & 2 & 0.995 & 0.79 & 0.881 & 0.786 & 0.94\% \\  & AML & & 270 & 186 & 0.255 & 0.258 & 0.256 & \(-0.49\) & 68.88\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 2**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{446} & 200 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.448 & 0.619 & 0.448 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 227 & 15 & 0.929 & 0.473 & 0.627 & 0.437 & 6.6\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 3**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{434} & 194 & 0 & 0.984 & 0.44 & 0.6 & 0.433 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 227 & 25 & 0.903 & 0.472 & 0.62 & 0.421 & 11\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 4**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{55} & 61 & 0 & 0.426 & 0.472 & 0.448 & \(-0.163\) & 0\% \\  & AML & & 331 & 317 & 0.033 & 0.2 & 0.056 & \(-5.61\) & 95.77\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 5**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{137} & 3 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.021 & 0.042 & 0.021 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 3 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.021 & 0.042 & 0.021 & 0\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 6**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{102} & 31 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.3 & 0.466 & 0.3 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 102 & 158 & 129 & 0.177 & 0.274 & 0.215 & \(-1.0\) & 81.64\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 7**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{521} & 290 & 0 & 0.996 & 0.554 & 0.712 & 0.552 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 3680 & 3628 & 0.013 & 0.095 & 0.023 & \(-6.871\) & 98.58\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 8**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{195} & 190 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.974 & 0.987 & 0.974 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 190 & 2 & 0.989 & 0.964 & 0.976 & 0.953 & 1\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 9**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{196} & 177 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.949 & 0.9 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 192 & 2 & 0.973 & 0.954 & 0.963 & 0.928 & 1.04\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 10**} & LogMap & \multirow{2}{*}{197} & 179 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.91 & 0.952 & 0.91 & 0\% \\  & AML & & 187 & 0 & 0.994 & 0.944 & 0.968 & 0.939 & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\mathcal{R}\): number of correspondences in the reference alignment \(\mathcal{R}\) = number of expected correspondences \(=TP+TN\). \({}^{\ddagger}\)A: number of correspondences in the output alignment \(\mathcal{A}\) = number of detected correspondences \(=TP+FP\). \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\)_Amb_: number of ambiguous correspondences in the output alignment \(\mathcal{A}\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Initial results overview (pre-disambiguation). In Tables 3 and 5, the output no longer contains ambiguous correspondences. Therefore, the scores for the _ambiguity degree_ are null. In Tables 4 and 5, we report the trimming _threshold_ values considered in the different experiments. Thresholds were manually tuned to optimize the output.