Improving Unsupervised WSD with a Dynamic Thesaurus

  • Javier Tejada-Cárcamo
  • Hiram Calvo
  • Alexander Gelbukh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5246)

Abstract

The method proposed by Diana McCarthy et al. [1] obtains the predominant sense for an ambiguous word based on a weighted list of terms related to the ambiguous word. This list of terms is obtained using the distributional similarity method proposed by Lin [2] to obtain a thesaurus. In that method, every occurrence of the ambiguous word uses the same thesaurus, regardless of the context where it occurs. Every different word to be disambiguated uses the same thesaurus. In this paper we explore a different method that accounts for the context of a word when determining the most frequent sense of an ambiguous word. In our method the list of distributed similar words is built based on the syntactic context of the ambiguous word. We attain a precision of 69.86%, which is 7% higher than the supervised baseline of using the MFS of 90% SemCor against the remaining 10% of SemCor.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy, D., et al.: Finding predominant senses in untagged text. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin, D.: Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In: Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998, Montreal, Canada (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelbukh, A.: Using measures of semantic relatedness for word sense disambiguation. In: Patwardhan, S., Banerjee, S., Pedersen, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Mexico City (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin, D.: Dependency-based Evaluation of MINIPAR. In: Workshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems, Granada, Spain (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hays, D.: Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40, 511–525 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mel’čuk, I.A.: Dependency syntax; theory and practice. State University of New York Press, Albany (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J.: WordNet:Similarity – Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2004), San Jose, CA, pp. 1024–1025 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, G.: Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. Princeton Univesity (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, G.: WordNet: an On-Line Lexical Database. International Journal of Lexicography (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Resnik, P.: Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, pp. 448–453 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang, J., Conrath, D.: Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, Taiwan (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fellbaum, C.: Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In: Leacock, C., Chodorow, M. (eds.) WordNet: An electronic lexical database, pp. 265–283 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilks, Y., Stevenson, M.: The Grammar of Sense: Is word-sense tagging much more than part-of-speech tagging, Sheffield Department of Computer Science (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sahlgren, M.: The Word-Space Model Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan, A.: An experimental study of ambiguity and context. Mechanical Translation 2, 39–46 (1955)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Tejada-Cárcamo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hiram Calvo
    • 1
  • Alexander Gelbukh
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Computing ResearchNational Polytechnic InstituteMexico CityMéxico
  2. 2.Sociedad Peruana de ComputaciónArequipaPerú

Personalised recommendations