Advertisement

The Use of Class Assertions and Hypernyms to Induce and Disambiguate Word Senses

  • Artem RevenkoEmail author
  • Victor Mireles
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1062)

Abstract

With the spread of semantic technologies more and more companies manage their own knowledge graphs (KG), applying them, among other tasks, to text analysis. However, the proprietary KGs are by design domain specific and do not include all the different possible meanings of the words used in a corpus. In order to enable the usage of these KGs for automatic text annotations, we introduce a robust method for discriminating word senses using sense indicators found in the KG: types, synonyms and/or hypernyms. The method uses collocations to induce word senses and to discriminate the sense included in the KG from the other senses, without the need for information about the latter, or the need for manual effort. On the two datasets created specially for this task the method outperforms the baseline and shows accuracy above 80%.

Keywords

Thesaurus Controlled vocabulary Word Sense Induction Entity linking Named entity disambiguation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the H2020 project Prêt-á-LLOD under Grant Agreement number 825182.

References

  1. Agirre, E., de Lacalle, O.L., Soroa, A.: Random walks for knowledge-based word sense disambiguation. Comput. Linguist. 40(1), 57–84 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman, E.: Hitchcock’s vertigo: the collapse of a rescue fantasy. Int. J. Psycho-Anal. 78, 975–988 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. Di Marco, A., Navigli, R.: Clustering and diversifying web search results with graph-based word sense induction. Comput. Linguist. 39(3), 709–754 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dice, L.R.: Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26(3), 297–302 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorow, B., Widdows, D.: Discovering corpus-specific word senses. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 79–82. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)Google Scholar
  6. Ehrlinger, L., Wöß, W.: Towards a definition of knowledge graphs. SEMANTiCS (Posters, Demos, SuCCESS), 48 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. Klapaftis, I.P., Manandhar, S.: Word sense induction using graphs of collocations. In: ECAI, pp. 298–302 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Li, J., Jurafsky, D.: Do multi-sense embeddings improve natural language understanding? arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01070 (2015)
  9. Navigli, R.: A quick tour of word sense disambiguation, induction and related approaches. In: Bieliková, M., Friedrich, G., Gottlob, G., Katzenbeisser, S., Turán, G. (eds.) SOFSEM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7147, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27660-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Navigli, R., Faralli, S., Soroa, A., de Lacalle, O., Agirre, E.: Two birds with one stone: learning semantic models for text categorization and word sense disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 2317–2320. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  11. Neelakantan, A., Shankar, J., Passos, A., McCallum, A.: Efficient non-parametric estimation of multiple embeddings per word in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.06654 (2015)
  12. Nelson, S.J.: Medical terminologies that work: the example of mesh. In: 2009 10th International Symposium on Pervasive Systems, Algorithms, and Networks, pp. 380–384 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Panchenko, A., Ruppert, E., Faralli, S., Ponzetto, S.P., Biemann, C.: Unsupervised does not mean uninterpretable: the case for word sense induction and disambiguation. Association for Computational Linguistics (2017)Google Scholar
  14. Rao, D., McNamee, P., Dredze, M.: Entity linking: finding extracted entities in a knowledge base. In: Poibeau, T., Saggion, H., Piskorski, J., Yangarber, R. (eds.) Multi-source, Multilingual Information Extraction and Summarization. Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, pp. 93–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28569-1_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ratinov, L., Roth, D., Downey, D., Anderson, M.: Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, vol. 1, pp. 1375–1384. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)Google Scholar
  16. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., Marslen-Wilson, W.: Making sense of semantic ambiguity: semantic competition in lexical access. J. Mem. Lang. 46(2), 245–266 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Singh, S., Subramanya, A., Pereira, F., McCallum, A.: Wikilinks: a large-scale cross-document coreference corpus labeled via links to Wikipedia. Technical report UM-CS-2012-015, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Véronis, J.: Hyperlex: lexical cartography for information retrieval. Comput. Speech Lang. 18(3), 223–252 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yarowsky, D.: Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 189–196. Association for Computational Linguistics (1995)Google Scholar
  20. Zhong, Z., Ng, H.T.: It makes sense: a wide-coverage word sense disambiguation system for free text. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2010 System Demonstrations, pp. 78–83. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Semantic Web CompanyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations