Views
5 years ago

Automatic Extraction of Examples for Word Sense Disambiguation

Automatic Extraction of Examples for Word Sense Disambiguation

CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION OF

CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION OF WSD SYSTEMS 41 fessional lexicographers but rather by contributors on a voluntary basis. The latter could use a Web-based application which enabled easy and fast annotation of the examples. Since we used exactly this corpus as a grounding base for our data, we consider it very relevant to review the most important parts of the annotation process. For each of the 57 words a set of sentences with their occurrences was extracted from the cor- pus and presented to the users of the Web-application. For each of the instances, the contributors had the chance to select one or more senses from a predefined list of all senses that the targeted word has. Of course, it was more than preferable that only one sense is chosen, however, the possibility to select more than one sense together with the options unclear and none of the above was provided. Figure 4.1 on page 41 shows an example of the Web-application. Figure 4.1: Screenshot from Open Mind Word Expert (Chklovski and Mihalcea, 2002). As sense inventory a mixture of WordNet (for all the nouns and the adjectives) and Wordsmyth 6 (for the verbs) was used . We already noticed in the previous sections that the MFS classifier is usually used as a baseline for system performance and for the English lexical sample task this heuristic reached 64.5% (coarse) and 55.2% (fine) accuracy. The reported overall IAA (nor- mally used as upper bound for system performance) for the data is relatively low - approximately 6 http://www.wordsmyth.net/

CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION OF WSD SYSTEMS 42 67.3%. From this result we could conclude that the expected performance of the systems in that task was in the range between the MFS and the inter-annotator agreement (IAA). However, the best performing system was reported to have reached an accuracy of 79.3% (coarse) and 72.9% (fine). Those considerably unexpected results could either mean that the IAA achieved by the OMWE is not good enough to be used as an upper bound for the task or that the systems reach considerably better performance than humans do for the given data. By briefly describing the Senseval-3 lexical sample task and in particular the English lexical sample task we aimed to give a broad overview of the attempts and achievements in the en- terprise, hence this is a starting point of understanding the system that we designed, which is fairly similar to the systems we have presented for the task. In Table 4.4 we have summed up the most important information from the presented section. To those figures we will return later on in our work when we will look at the structure and results of our approach. Language IAA Best Score (coarse) System Basque 78.2% 71.1% Swarthmore College Catalan 93.16% 85.2% IRST Chinese - 60.40% I 2 R-WSD (FEATUREA1) English 67.3% 79.3% htsa3 Italian 73% - 99% 53.1% IRST-Kernels Romanian 41.72% - 94.43% 77.1% romanian-swat hk-bo Spanish 83% - 90% 84.20% IRST 4.5.3 Other Tasks Table 4.4: Summary of the Senseval-3 Lexical Sample Task. Along with the all-words task and the lexical sample task there were a few other competitions in Senseval-3 (Automatic subcategorization acquisition (Preiss and Korhonen, 2004), Multilin- gual lexical sample/Translation (Chklovski et al., 2004), Word-Sense Disambiguation of WordNet Glosses (Litkowski, 2004b), Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles (Litkowski, 2004a), Identifi- cation of Logic Forms in English (Rus, 2004), Identification of Semantic Roles in Swedish - can- celled). However, those tasks are not that relevant for our work and for the sake shortness we will not pay further attention to them. Thus, if any detailed information is needed, refer to the relevant literature for each task. 4.6 Semeval-1 Since the results from the Senseval competitions were so good and there was a growing in- terest in the task of classifying semantic relations between pairs of words a new exercise was

A Machine Learning Approach for Automatic Road Extraction - asprs
Selective Sampling for Example-based Word Sense Disambiguation
Word sense disambiguation with pattern learning and automatic ...
Word Sense Disambiguation Using Automatically Acquired Verbal ...
Using Machine Learning Algorithms for Word Sense Disambiguation ...
Word Sense Disambiguation The problem of WSD - PEOPLE
Performance Metrics for Word Sense Disambiguation
BOOTSTRAPPING IN WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION
Word Sense Disambiguation - cs547pa1
WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION - Leffa
word sense disambiguation and recognizing textual entailment with ...
MRD-based Word Sense Disambiguation - the Association for ...
Word Sense Disambiguation Using Selectional Restriction - Ijsrp.org
Using unsupervised word sense disambiguation to ... - INESC-ID
Using Lexicon Definitions and Internet to Disambiguate Word Senses
Word Sense Disambiguation is Fundamentally Multidimensional
A Comparative Evaluation of Word Sense Disambiguation Algorithms
KU: Word Sense Disambiguation by Substitution - Deniz Yuret's ...
Semi-supervised Word Sense Disambiguation ... - ResearchGate
Using Meaning Aspects for Word Sense Disambiguation
Word Sense Disambiguation: An Empirical Survey - International ...
Word-Sense Disambiguation for Machine Translation
Towards Word Sense Disambiguation of Polish - Proceedings of the ...
Word Sense Disambiguation Using Association Rules: A Survey
Unsupervised learning of word sense disambiguation rules ... - CLAIR
Similarity-based Word Sense Disambiguation
Word Sense Disambiguation with Pictures - CLAIR
Word Sense Disambiguation with Pictures - CiteSeerX