Soft Computing

pp 1–25

SISR: System for integrating semantic relatedness and similarity measures

  • Mohamed Ben Aouicha
  • Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb
  • Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

Semantic similarity and relatedness measures have increasingly become core elements in the recent research within the semantic technology community. Nowadays, the search for efficient meaning-centered applications that exploit computational semantics has become a necessity. Researchers, have therefore, become increasingly interested in the development of a model that can simulate the human thinking process and capable of measuring semantic similarity/relatedness between lexical terms, including concepts and words. Knowledge resources are fundamental to quantify semantic similarity or relatedness and achieve the best expression for the semantics content. No fully developed system that is able to centralize these approaches is currently available for the research and industrial communities. In this paper, we propose a System for Integrating Semantic Relatedness and similarity measures, SISR, which aims to provide a variety of tools for computing the semantic similarity and relatedness. This system is the first to treat the topic of computing semantic relatedness with a view of integrating different key stakeholders in a parameterized way. As an instance of the proposed architecture, we propose WNetSS which is a Java API allowing the use of a wide WordNet-based semantic similarity measures pertaining to different categories including taxonomic-based, features-based and IC-based measures. It is the first API that allows the extraction of the topological parameters from the WordNet “is a” taxonomy which are used to express the semantics of concepts. Moreover, an evaluation module is proposed to assess the reproducibility of the measures accuracy that can be evaluated according to 10 widely used benchmarks through the correlations coefficients.

Keywords

Semantic technology Knowledge resource Semantic similarity Semantic relatedness WNetSS API 

References

  1. Agirre E, Alfonseca E, Hall K, Kravalova J, Pasca M, Soroa A (2009) A study on similarity and relatedness using distributional and WordNet-based approaches. In: Proceedings of human language technologies: the 2009 annual conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Boulder, CO, pp 19–27Google Scholar
  2. Al-Mubaid H, Nguyen HA (2006a) A cluster-based approach for semantic similarity in the biomedical domain. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology societyGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Mubaid H, Nguyen HA (2006b) A cluster-based approach for semantic similarity in the biomedical domain. In: Conference proceedings: annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in medicine and biology society, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society conference, vol 1, pp 2713–2717Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee S, Pedersen T (2003) Extended gloss overlaps as a measure of semantic relatedness. In: Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Acapulco, Mexico, pp 805–810Google Scholar
  5. Batet M, Sánchez D, Valls A, Gibert K (2013) Semantic similarity estimation from multiple ontologies. Appl Intell 38:29–44. doi:10.1007/s10489-012-0355-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben Aouicha M, Hadj Taieb MA (2016) Computing semantic similarity between biomedical concepts using new information content approach. J Biomed Inform 59:258–275. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2015.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Aouicha M, Hadj Taieb MA, Hamadou AB (2016) Taxonomy-based information content and wordnet-wiktionary-wikipedia glosses for semantic relatedness. Appl Intell. doi:10.1007/s10489-015-0755-x
  8. Bollegala D, Matsuo Y, Ishizuka M (2007) An integrated approach to measuring semantic similarity between words using information available on the web. In: Sidner CL, Schultz T, Stone M, Zhai C (eds) HLT-NAACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 340–347Google Scholar
  9. Bruni E, Tran NK, Baroni M (2014) Multimodal distributional semantics. J Artif Int Res 49:1–47MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Budanitsky A (1999) Lexical semantic relatedness and its application in natural language processingGoogle Scholar
  11. Budanitsky A, Hirst G (2001) Semantic distance in WordNet: an experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures. In: Workshop on WordNet and other lexical resources, second meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguisticsGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolan B, Quirk C, Brockett C (2004) Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: exploiting massively parallel news sources. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computational linguistics. doi:10.3115/1220355.1220406
  13. Gabrilovich E, Markovitch S (2007) Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artifical intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Hyderabad, India, pp 1606–1611Google Scholar
  14. Gao J-B, Zhang B-W, Chen XH (2015) A WordNet-based semantic similarity measurement combining edge-counting and information content theory. Eng Appl Artif Intell 39:80–88. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2014.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurevych I, Mühlhäuser M, Müller C, Steimle J, Weimer M, Zesch T (2007) Darmstadt Knowledge processing repository based on UIMA. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on unstructured information management architecture at biannual conference of the society for computational linguistics and language technologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurevych I, Strube M (2004) Semantic similarity applied to spoken dialogue summarization. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computational linguistics. doi:10.3115/1220355.1220465
  17. Hadj Taieb MA, Ben Aouicha M, Ben Hamadou A (2013) Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia features. Knowl Based Syst 50:260–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadj Taieb MA, Ben Aouicha M, Ben Hamadou A (2014a) A new semantic relatedness measurement using WordNet features. Knowl Inf Syst 41:467–497. doi:10.1007/s10115-013-0672-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadj Taieb MA, Ben Aouicha M, Ben Hamadou A (2014b) Ontology-based approach for measuring semantic similarity. Eng Appl Artif Intell 36:238–261. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2014.07.015
  20. Han X, Zhao J (2010) Structural semantic relatedness: a knowledge-based method to named entity disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  21. Hao D, Zuo W, Peng T, He F (2011) An approach for calculating semantic similarity between words using WordNet. In: ICDMA. IEEE, pp 177–180Google Scholar
  22. Hill F, Reichart R, Korhonen A (2014) SimLex-999: evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. CoRR abs/1408.3456:Google Scholar
  23. Janowicz K, Keßler C, Schwarz M, Wilkes M, Panov I, Espeter M, Bäumer B (2007) Algorithm, implementation and application of the SIM-DL similarity server. In: Fonseca FT, Rodriguez MA, Levashkin S (eds) GeoS. Springer, Berlin, pp 128–145Google Scholar
  24. Jiang JJ, Conrath DW (1997) Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy. CoRR cmp-lg/9709008:Google Scholar
  25. Kolb P (2008) DISCO: a multilingual database of distributionally similar words. In: Storrer A, Geyken A, Siebert A, Würzner K-M (eds) KONVENS 2008 – Ergänzungsband: Textressourcen und lexikalisches Wissen. Berlin, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  26. Kondrak G (2001) Identifying cognates by phonetic and semantic similarity. In: Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics on language technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  27. Leacock C, Chodorow M (1998) Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In: Fellfaum C (ed). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  28. Lesk M (1986) Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: how to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual international conference on systems documentation. ACM, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp 24–26Google Scholar
  29. Li Y, Bandar ZA, McLean D (2003) An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 15:871–882. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2003.1209005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li B, Luo F, Wang JZ, Feltus FA, Zhou J (2010) Effectively integrating information content and structural relationship to improve the GO-based similarity measure between proteins. In: Arabnia HR, Tran Q-N, Chang R, He M, Marsh A, Solo AMG, Yang JY (eds) BIOCOMP. CSREA Press, pp 166–172Google Scholar
  31. Lin D (1998a) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 296–304Google Scholar
  32. Lin D (1998b) Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and 17th international conference on computational linguistics, vol 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 768–774Google Scholar
  33. Liu X-Y, Zhou Y-M, Zheng R-S (2007) Measuring semantic similarity in Wordnet. In: International conference on machine learning and cybernetics. IEEE, pp 3431–3435Google Scholar
  34. Liu H, Chen Y (2010) Computing semantic relatedness between named entities using Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on artificial intelligence and computational intelligence, vol 01. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 388–392Google Scholar
  35. Marie-Francine M (2013) Similarity measures for semantic relation extraction. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-NeuveGoogle Scholar
  36. Matsuo Y, Sakaki T, Uchiyama K, Ishizuka M (2006) Graph-based word clustering using a web search engine. In: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, pp 542–550Google Scholar
  37. Meng L, Gu J, Zhou Z (2012) A new model of information content based on concept’s topology for measuring semantic similarity in WordNet. Int J Grid Distrib Comput 5:81–94Google Scholar
  38. Meng L, Gu J (2012) A new model for measuring word sense similarity in WordNet. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on advanced communication and networking. SERSC, Jeju, Korea, pp 18–23Google Scholar
  39. Miller GA, Charles WG (1991) Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Lang Cogn Process 6:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ovaska K, Laakso M, Hautaniemi S (2008) Fast gene ontology based clustering for microarray experiments. BioData Min 1Google Scholar
  41. Patwardhan S, Pedersen T (2006) Using WordNet-based context vectors to estimate the semantic relatedness of concepts. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2006 workshop making sense of sense-bringing computational linguistics and psycholinguistics together, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  42. Pedersen T, Patwardhan S, Michelizzi J (2004) WordNet:: similarity: measuring the relatedness of concepts. In: Demonstration papers at HLT-NAACL 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics, Boston, MA, pp 38–41Google Scholar
  43. Petrakis EGM, Varelas G, Hliaoutakis A, Raftopoulou P (2006) X-similarity: computing semantic similarity between concepts from different ontologies. J Digit Inf Manag 4:233–237Google Scholar
  44. Pilehvar MT, Jurgens D, Navigli R (2013) Align, disambiguate and walk: a unified approach for measuring semantic similarity. In: ACL (1). The Association for Computer Linguistics, pp 1341–1351Google Scholar
  45. Pirró G (2009) A semantic similarity metric combining features and intrinsic information content. Data Knowl Eng 68:1289–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rada R, Mili H, Bicknell E, Blettner M (1989) Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Resnik P (1999) Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: an information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. J Artif Intell Res 11:95–130MATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodriguez MA, Egenhofer MJ (2003) Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 15:442–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rubenstein H, Goodenough JB (1965) Contextual correlates of synonymy. Commun ACM 8:627–633. doi:10.1145/365628.365657
  50. Sánchez D, Batet M, Isern D (2011) Ontology-based information content computation. Knowl Based Syst 24:297–303. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2010.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sánchez D, Solé-Ribalta A, Batet M, Serratosa F (2012) Enabling semantic similarity estimation across multiple ontologies: an evaluation in the biomedical domain. J Biomed Inform 45:141–155. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Šaric F, Glavaš G, Karan M, Šnajder J, Dalbelo Bašic B (2012) TakeLab: systems for measuring semantic text similarity. In: Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2012). Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, Canada, pp 441–448Google Scholar
  53. Sebti A, Barfroush AA (2008) A new word sense similarity measure in WordNet. In: IMCSIT. IEEE, pp 369–373Google Scholar
  54. Seco N, Veale T, Hayes J (2004) An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in WordNet. In: Proceedings of ECAI 4Google Scholar
  55. Stevenson M, Greenwood MA (2005) A semantic approach to IE pattern induction. In: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 379–386Google Scholar
  56. Sussna M (1993) Word sense disambiguation for free-text indexing using a massive semantic network. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on information and knowledge management. ACM, Washington, DC, USA, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  57. Tapeh AG, Rahgozar M (2008) A knowledge-based question answering system for B2C eCommerce. Knowl Based Syst 21:946–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84:327–352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang JZ, Du Z, Payattakool R, Yu PS, Chen C-F (2007) A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms. Bioinformatics 23:1274–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang T, Hirst G (2011) Refining the notions of depth and density in WordNet-based semantic similarity measures. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Edinburgh, UK, pp 1003–1011Google Scholar
  61. Wu H, Su Z, Mao F, Olman V, Xu Y (2005) Prediction of functional modules based on comparative genome analysis and Gene Ontology application. Nucleic Acids Res 33:2822–2837. doi:10.1093/nar/gki573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu Z, Palmer M (1994) Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, NM, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  63. Zesch T (2010) Study of semantic relatedness of words using collaboratively constructed semantic resources, pp 1–130Google Scholar
  64. Zhou Z, Wang Y, Gu J (2008) A new model of information content for semantic similarity in WordNet. In: International conference on future generation communication and networking symposia, vol 3, pp 85–89Google Scholar
  65. Zhou Z, Wang Y, Gu J (2008) New model of semantic similarity measuring in WordNet. In: 3rd international conference on intelligent system and knowledge engineering, 2008 (ISKE 2008). IEEE, pp 256–261Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Ben Aouicha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb
    • 1
    • 3
  • Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.MIRACL LaboratorySfax UniversitySfaxTunisia
  2. 2.Faculty of SciencesSfax UniversitySfaxTunisia
  3. 3.Higher Institute of Applied Sciences and TechnologySousse UniversitySousseTunisia
  4. 4.Higher Institute of Computer Science and MultimediaSfax UniversitySfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations