Advertisement

The Effect of Windowing in Word Sense Disambiguation

  • Ergin Altintas
  • Elif Karsligil
  • Vedat Coskun
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3733)

Abstract

In this paper, the effect of different windowing schemes to the success rate of word sense disambiguation is probed. In these windowing schemes it is considered that the impact of a neighbor word to the correct sense of the target word should be somewhat related to it’s distance to the target word. Several weighting functions are evaluated for their performance in representing this relation. Two semantic similarity measures, one of which is introduced by the authors of this paper, are used in a modified version of Maximum Relatedness Disambiguation algorithm for the experiments. This approach yielded improvements up to 4.24% in word sense disambiguation accuracy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Language, Speech, and Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee, S., Pedersen, T.: An adapted Lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using WordNet. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Mexico City (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quillian, M.R.: Semantic memory. In: Minsky, M. (ed.) Semantic Information Processing, pp. 227–270. MIT Press, Cambridge (1968)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, New Mexico (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Resnik, P.: Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, pp. 448–453 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jiang, J., Conrath, D.: Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, Taiwan, pp. 19–33 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, Madison, Wisconsin (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirst, G., St-Onge, D.: Lexical Chains as representations of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms. In: Fellbaum, C. (ed.) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Language, Speech, and Communication, pp. 305–332. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leacock, C., Chodorow, M.: Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In: Fellbaum, C. (ed.) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Language, Speech, and Communication, pp. 265–283. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rennie, J.: WordNet::QueryData: a Perl module for accessing the WordNet database (2000), http://search.cpan.org/dist/WordNet-QueryData
  11. 11.
    Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J.: WordNet::Similarity - Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts, pp. 1024–1025. AAAI, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patwardhan, S., Banerjee, S., Pedersen, T.: Using Semantic Relatedness for Word Sense Disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, pp. 241–257 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ergin Altintas
    • 1
  • Elif Karsligil
    • 2
  • Vedat Coskun
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Science and Engineering InstituteTurkish Naval AcademyTuzla,Istanbul
  2. 2.Computer Engineering DepartmentYildiz Technical UniversityYildiz,Istanbul

Personalised recommendations