Optimizing ontology alignment through hybrid population-based incremental learning algorithm

  • Xingsi Xue
  • Junfeng Chen
Regular Research Paper


Ontology matching is an effective technique to solve the ontology heterogeneous problem in Semantic Web. Since different ontology matchers do not necessarily find the same correct correspondences, usually several competing matchers are applied to the same pair of entities in order to increase evidence towards a potential match or mismatch. How to select, combine and tune various ontology matchers to obtain the high quality ontology alignment is one of the main challenges in ontology matching domain. Recently, Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) has become the most suitable methodology to face this challenge, however, the huge memory consumption, slow convergence and premature convergence limit its application and reduce the solution’s quality. To this end, in this paper, we propose a Hybrid Population-based Incremental Learning algorithm (HPBIL) to automatically select, combine and tune different ontology matchers, which can overcome three drawbacks of EA based ontology matching techniques and improve the ontology alignment’s quality. In one hand, HPBIL makes use of a probabilistic representation of the population to perform the optimization process, which can significantly reduce EA’s the memory consumption and the possibility of the premature convergence. In the other, we introduce the local search strategy into PBIL’s evolving process to trade off its exploration and exploitation, and this marriage between global search and local search is helpful to reduce the runtime. In the experiment, we utilize different scale testing cases provided by the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI 2016) to test HPBIL’s performance, and the experimental results show that HPBIL’s results significantly outperform other EA based ontology matching techniques and top-performers of the OAEI competitions.


Ontology matching Population-based incremental learning algorithm Ontology alignment evaluation initiative 



This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61503082 and 61403121), Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No. 2016J05145), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2015B20214), Scientific Research Startup Foundation of Fujian University of Technology (No. GY-Z15007), Scientific Research Development Foundation of Fujian University of Technology (No. GY-Z17162) and Fujian Province Outstanding Young Scientific Researcher Training Project (No. GY-Z160149).


  1. 1.
    Acampora G, Loia V, Vitiello A (2013) Enhancing ontology alignment through a memetic aggregation of similarity measures. Inf Sci 250:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achichi M, Cheatham M, Dragisic Z, Euzenat J, Faria D, Ferrara A, Flouris G, Fundulaki I, Harrow I, Ivanova V et al (2016) Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2016. In: OM: Ontology matching, pp 73–129. No commercial editorGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baluja S (1994) Population-based incremental learning. a method for integrating genetic search based function optimization and competitive learning. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Dept. of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bock J, Hettenhausen J (2012) Discrete particle swarm optimisation for ontology alignment. Inf Sci 192:152–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodenreider O (2004) The unified medical language system (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res 32(Suppl 1):D267–D270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boonyapalanant A, Nitsuwat S (2017) An automatic ontology matching using similarity of components and synonym. Int J Comput Inter Manag 25(1):90–96Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    dos Santos Coelho L, Grebogi RB (2010) Chaotic synchronization using PID control combined with population based incremental learning algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 37(7):5347–5352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faria D, Pesquita C, Balasubramani BS, Martins C, Cardoso J, Curado H, Couto FM, Cruz IF (2016) OAEI 2016 results of AML. In: OM@ ISWC, pp 138–145Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 32(200):675–701CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganzha M, Paprzycki M, Pawłowski W, Szmeja P, Wasielewska K (2018) Towards semantic interoperability between internet of things platforms. In: Integration, interconnection, and interoperability of IoT systems, Springer, pp 103–127Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia S, Molina D, Lozano M, Herrera F (2009) A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms behaviour: a case study on the CEC2005 special session on real parameter optimization. J Heuristics 15(6):617–644CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hertz J, Krogh A, Palmer RG (1991) Introduction to the theory of neural computation. In: Lecture notes volume I in the Santa Fe Institute Studies in the sciences of complexity. Addison Wesley Longman, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiménez-Ruiz E, Grau BC, Cross VV (2016) Logmap family participation in the OAEI 2016. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 15th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2016), Kobe, Japan, pp 185–189, 18 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kilgarriff A (2000) Wordnet: an electronic lexical databaseGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lozano JA (2006) Towards a new evolutionary computation: advances on estimation of distribution algorithms, vol 192. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martinez-Gil J, Alba E, Montes JFA (2008) Optimizing ontology alignments by using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on nature inspired reasoning for the semantic web-volume 419, pp 1–15. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melnik S, Garcia-Molina H, Rahm E (2002) Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In: Proceedings of 18th international conference on data engineering, 2002, IEEE, pp 117–128Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller GA (1995) Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun ACM 38(11):39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naya JV, Romero MM, Loureiro JP, Munteanu CR, Sierra AP (2010) Improving ontology alignment through genetic algorithms. Soft computing methods for practical environment solutions: techniques and studies, pp 240–259Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neri F, Iacca G, Mininno E (2013) Compact optimization. Handbook of optimization, pp 337–364Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nguyen TTA, Conrad S (2015) Ontology matching using multiple similarity measures. In: 2015 7th international joint conference on knowledge discovery, knowledge engineering and knowledge management (IC3K), IEEE, vol. 1, pp 603–611Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rijsberge CJV (1975) Information retrieval. University of Glasgow, Butterworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sheskin DJ (2003) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2013) Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(1):158–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stoilos G, Stamou G, Kollias S (2005) A string metric for ontology alignment. Semant Web-ISWC 2005:624–637Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang J, Ding Z, Jiang C (2006) Gaom: genetic algorithm based ontology matching. In: IEEE Asia-Pacific conference on services computing, 2006, APSCC’06, IEEE, pp 617–620Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warith ED, Mohamed TK, Sadok BY (2016) Xmap: results for OAEI 2016. In: OM@ ISWC, pp 222–226Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xue X, Wang Y (2015a) Ontology alignment based on instance using NSGA-II. J Inf Sci 41(1):58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xue X, Wang Y (2015b) Optimizing ontology alignments through a memetic algorithm using both MatchFmeasure and unanimous improvement ratio. Artif Intell 223:65–81MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zangari M, Santana R, Mendiburu A, Pozo ATR (2017) Not all PBILS are the same: unveiling the different learning mechanisms of PBIL variants. Appl Soft Comput 53:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and EngineeringFujian University of TechnologyFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and ApplicationsFujian University of TechnologyFuzhouChina
  3. 3.Fujian Key Lab for Automotive Electronics and Electric DriveFujian University of TechnologyFuzhouChina
  4. 4.College of IOT EngineeringHohai UniversityChangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations