Selective Sampling for Example-based Word Sense Disambiguation

Computational Linguistics Volume 24, Number 4
100
95
90
85
' ' ~5 • J
80 i
60 70 80 90
coverage (%)
Figure 8
The relation between coverage and accuracy with different A's.
O ----X ....
ated with two or more verb senses are not selective enough to allow for a clear-cut
delineation between them. This situation is explicitly rejected by condition 2.
Based on the above two conditions, we compute interpretation certainties using
Equation (10), where C(x) is the interpretation certainty of an example x, Scorel(x) and
Score2(x) are the highest and second highest scores for x, respectively, and ,~, which
ranges from 0 to 1, is a parametric constant used to control the degree to which each
condition affects the computation of C(x).
C(x)=A. Scorel(x)+(1 - ~).(Scorel(x) - Score2(x)) (10)
Through a preliminary experiment, we estimated the validity of the notion of
interpretation certainty, by the trade-off between accuracy and coverage of the system.
Note that in this experiment, accuracy is the ratio of the number of correct outputs
and the number of cases where the interpretation certainty of the output is above a
certain threshold. Coverage is the ratio of the number of cases where the interpretation
certainty of the output is above a certain threshold and the number of inputs. By
raising the value of the threshold, accuracy also increases (at least theoretically), while
coverage decreases.
The system used the Bunruigoihyo thesaurus for the similarity computation, and
was evaluated by way of sixfold cross-validation using the same corpus as that used
for the experiment described in Section 2.3. Figure 8 shows the result of the experiment
with several values of ,~, from which the optimal )~ value seems to be in the range
around 0.5. It can be seen that, as we assumed, both of the above conditions are
essential for the estimation of interpretation certainty.
586
100