[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-369?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13211424#comment-13211424
]
Christian Moen edited comment on TIKA-369 at 2/19/12 5:23 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should follow up on this?
The {{language-detection}} library looks attractive to me and seems to be the
best Java-based language detection library available and it also has a suitable
license. However, it seems to require Java 6 and Tika is still based on Java
5. Does this effectively rule out using {{language-detection}} for Tika?
Does it make sense to make {{language-detection}} an option that can be used as
an alternative to the current detector?
The idea is basically to support {{language-detection}} in addition to what we
have today with the latter being the default.
was (Author: cm):
Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should follow up on this?
The {{language-detection}} library looks attractive to me and seems to be the
best Java-based language detection library available and it also has a suitable
license. However, it seems to require Java 6 and Tika is still based on Java
5. Does this effectively rule out using {{language-detection}} for Tika?
Does it make sense to make {{language-detection}} an option that can be used as
an alternative to the current detector?
The idea is basically to support {{language-detection}} in addition to what we
have today with the latter as being the default. we have as default.
> Improve accuracy of language detection
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: TIKA-369
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-369
> Project: Tika
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: languageidentifier
> Affects Versions: 0.6
> Reporter: Ken Krugler
> Assignee: Ken Krugler
> Attachments: Surprise and Coincidence.pdf, lingdet-mccs.pdf,
> textcat.pdf
>
>
> Currently the LanguageProfile code uses 3-grams to find the best language
> profile using Pearson's chi-square test. This has three issues:
> 1. The results aren't very good for short runs of text. Ted Dunning's paper
> (attached) indicates that a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) test works much
> better, which would then make language detection faster due to less text
> needing to be processed.
> 2. The current LanguageIdentifier.isReasonablyCertain() method uses an exact
> value as a threshold for certainty. This is very sensitive to the amount of
> text being processed, and thus gives false negative results for short runs of
> text.
> 3. Certainty should also be based on how much better the result is for
> language X, compared to the next best language. If two languages both had
> identical sum-of-squares values, and this value was below the threshold, then
> the result is still not very certain.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
