# Uncertainty in Automated Ontology Matching: Lessons from an Empirical Evaluation
## 5 Case Study: Spatio-Temporal Alignment of Indicators
### Experimental Results
#### 5.3.2 Metric Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Exp.** & **Tool** & **Threshold** & \(\mathcal{R}\)* & \(\mathcal{A}\)* & _Amb_ \(\lx@sectionsign\)** & _Precision_ & _Recall_ & _F-Measure_ & _Overall_ & _Ambiguity_ \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 1**} & LogMap & – & 267 & 211 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.79 & 0.882 & 0.79 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & 0.77 & 90 & 0 & 0.722 & 0.243 & 0.364 & 0.149 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 2**} & LogMap & – & 446 & 200 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.448 & 0.619 & 0.448 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & – & 218 & 0 & 0.958 & 0.468 & 0.629 & 0.448 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 3**} & LogMap & – & 194 & 0 & 0.984 & 0.44 & 0.6 & 0.433 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & – & 210 & 0 & 0.952 & 0.46 & 0.621 & 0.437 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 4**} & LogMap & – & 55 & 61 & 0 & 0.426 & 0.472 & 0.448 & \(-\)0.163 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & 0.49 & 20 & 0 & 0.45 & 0.163 & 0.24 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 5**} & LogMap & – & 137 & 3 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.021 & 0.042 & 0.021 & 0.0\% \\  & AML & – & 3 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.021 & 0.042 & 0.021 & 0.0\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 6**} & LogMap & – & 102 & 31 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.3 & 0.466 & 0.3 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & 0.46 & 29 & 0 & 0.965 & 0.274 & 0.427 & 0.264 & 0.0\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 7**} & LogMap & – & 200 & 0 & 0.996 & 0.554 & 0.712 & 0.552 & 0.0\% \\  & AML & 0.51 & 50 & 0 & 0.98 & 0.094 & 0.171 & 0.092 & 0.0\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 8**} & LogMap & – & 195 & 190 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.974 & 0.987 & 0.974 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & – & 189 & 0 & 0.994 & 0.964 & 0.979 & 0.958 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 9**} & LogMap & – & 196 & 177 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.949 & 0.9\% \\  & AML & – & 191 & 0 & 0.979 & 0.954 & 0.966 & 0.933 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 10**} & LogMap & – & 179 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.91 & 0.952 & 0.91 & 0.7\% \\  & AML & – & 187 & 0 & 0.994 & 0.944 & 0.968 & 0.939 & 0.7\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\mathcal{R}\): expected correspondences. \({}^{\ddagger}\)\(\mathcal{A}\): detected correspondences. \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\)\(\mathcal{A}\): ambiguous correspondences in \(\mathcal{A}\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results after alignment _trimming_ and _disambiguation_. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline Exp. & **Tool** & **Initial Alignment1** & **Disambiguation2** & **Trimming3** & **Dis. and Trim.4** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 1**} & LogMap & 0.79 & 0.79 & 0.79 & 0.79 \\  & AML & **0.258** & 0.247 & 0.25 & 0.243 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 2**} & LogMap & 0.448 & 0.448 & 0.448 & 0.448 \\  & AML & **0.473** & 0.468 & **0.473** & 0.468 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 3**} & LogMap & 0.44 & 0.44 & 0.44 & 0.44 \\  & AML & **0.472** & 0.46 & **0.472** & 0.46 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 4**} & LogMap & 0.472 & 0.472 & 0.472 & 0.472 \\  & AML & **0.2** & 0.163 & **0.2** & 0.163 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 5**} & LogMap & 0.021 & 0.021 & 0.021 & 0.021 \\  & AML & 0.021 & 0.021 & 0.021 & 0.021 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 6**} & LogMap & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 \\  & AML & 0.274 & 0.274 & 0.274 & 0.274 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 7**} & LogMap & 0.554 & 0.554 & 0.554 & 0.554 \\  & AML & **0.095** & **0.095** & 0.094 & 0.094 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 8**} & LogMap & 0.974 & 0.974 & 0.974 & 0.974 \\  & AML & 0.964 & 0.964 & 0.964 & 0.964 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 9**} & LogMap & 0.9 & 0.9 & 0.9 & 0.9 \\  & AML & 0.954 & 0.954 & 0.954 & 0.954 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Exp. 10**} & LogMap & 0.91 & 0.91 & 0.91 & 0.91 \\  & AML & 0.944 & 0.944 & 0.944 & 0.944 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Table 2. 2 Table 3. 3 Table 4. 4 Table 5.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Recall_ analysis.