DOCSLIB.ORG

Automatic Wordnet Mapping Using Word Sense Disambiguation*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Automatic Wordnet Mapping Using Word Sense Disambiguation* Automatic WordNet mapping using word sense disambiguation* Changki Lee Seo JungYun Geunbae Leer Natural Language Processing Lab Natural Language Processing Lab Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Dept. of Computer Science Pohang University of Science & Technology Sogang University San 31, Hyoja-Dong, Pohang, 790-784, Korea Sinsu-dong 1, Mapo-gu, Seoul, Korea {leeck,gblee }@postech.ac.kr seojy@ ccs.sogang.ac.kr bilingual Korean-English dictionary. The first Abstract sense of 'gwan-mog' has 'bush' as a translation in English and 'bush' has five synsets in This paper presents the automatic WordNet. Therefore the first sense of construction of a Korean WordNet from 'gwan-mog" has five candidate synsets. pre-existing lexical resources. A set of Somehow we decide a synset {shrub, bush} automatic WSD techniques is described for among five candidate synsets and link the sense linking Korean words collected from a of 'gwan-mog' to this synset. bilingual MRD to English WordNet synsets. As seen from this example, when we link the We will show how individual linking senses of Korean words to WordNet synsets, provided by each WSD method is then there are semantic ambiguities. To remove the combined to produce a Korean WordNet for ambiguities we develop new word sense nouns. disambiguation heuristics and automatic mapping method to construct Korean WordNet based on 1 Introduction the existing English WordNet. There is no doubt on the increasing This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, importance of using wide coverage ontologies we describe multiple heuristics for word sense for NLP tasks especially for information disambiguation for sense linking. In section 3, we retrieval and cross-language information explain the method of combination for these retrieval. While these ontologies exist in English, heuristics. Section 4 presents some experiment there are very few available wide range results, and section 5 will discuss some related ontologies for other languages. Manual researches. Finally we draw some conclusions construction of the ontology by experts is the and future researches in section 6. The automatic most reliable technique but is costly and highly mapping-based Korean WordNet plays a natural time-consuming. This is the reason for many Korean-English bilingual thesaurus, so it will be researchers having focused on massive directly applied to Korean-English cross-lingual acquisition of lexical knowledge and semantic information retrieval as well as Korean information from pre-existing lexical resources monolingual information retrieval. as automatically as possible. This paper presents a novel approach for 2 Multiple heuristics for word sense automatic WordNet mapping using word sense disambiguation disambiguafion. The method has been applied to As the mapping method described in this paper link Korean words from a bilingual dictionary to has been developed for combining multiple English WordNet synsets. individual solutions, each single heuristic must be To clarify the description, an example is given. seen as a container for some part of the linguistic To link the first sense of Korean word knowledge needed to disarnbiguate the "gwan-mog" to WordNet synset, we employ a * This research was supported by KOSEF special purpose basic research (1997.9- 2000.8 #970-1020-301-3) Corresponding author 142 ambiguous WordNet synsets. Therefore, not a candidate synsets in smaller number of single heuristic is suitable to all Korean words translations get relatively less weight (a=0.5 was collected from a bilingual dictionary. We will tuned experimentally), support(s,ew) calculates describe each individual WSD (word sense the maximum similarity with the synset s and the disambiguation) heuristic for Korean word translation ew, which is defined as : mapping into corresponding English senses. support(si, ew) = max S(si, s) Korean word English word WordNetsynset sEsynset( ew ) wsl S2) = ~ S im( st, s2) if sire(s,, s2) _> 0 S(sl, = WS 2 l 0 otherwise ... Similarity measures lower than a threshold 0 are considered to be noise and are ignored. In our experiments, 0=0.3 was used. sim(s,s2) computes W$ n the conceptual similarity between concepts s~ and sz as in the following formula : Figure 1: Word-to-Concept Association 2 x level(MSCA(sl, s:)) sim(sl, s2)= Figure 1 shows the Korean word to WordNet level(sO + level(s2) synset association. The j-th sense of Korean word kw has m translations in English and n where MSCA(sl,s2) represents the most specific WordNet synsets as candidate senses. Each common ancestor of concepts s~ and s2 and heuristic is applied to the candidate senses (ws,, level(s) refers to the depth of concept s from the .... ws) and provides scores for them. root node in the WordNetL 2.1 Heuristic 1: Maximum Similarity 2.2 Heuristic 2: Prior Probability This heuristic comes from our previous This heuristic provides prior probability to Korean WSD research (Lee and Lee, 2000) and each sense of a single translation as score. assumes that all the translations in English for Therefore we will give maximum score to the the same Korean word sense are semantically synset of a monosemous translation, that is, the similar. So this heuristic provides the maximum translation which has only one corresponding score to the sense that is most similar to the synset. The following formula explains the idea. senses of the other translations. This heuristic is applied when the number of translations for the H2(s,) = max P(s, l ew) same Korean word sense is more than 1. The ¢,n,E EW~ following formula explains the idea. where EWi = {ew I si ~ synset(ew) } 1 P ( si I ewj ) -~ -- Hi(s,) = max support( s,, ew~) - 1 ~'~, (n-1)+a k,=l nj where si ~ synset(ewj), nj = where EWi = (ewl s, ~ synset(ew)} Isyr et( w,)l In this formula, Hi(s) is a heuristic score of In this formula, n is the number of synsets of synset s, s is a candidate synset, ew is a the translation e~t~. translation into English, n is the number of 2.3 Heuristic 3: Sense Ordering translations and synset(ew) is the set of synsets (Gale et al., 1992) reports that word sense of the translation ew. So Ew becomes the set of disambiguation would be at least 75% correct if a translations which have the synset s r. The system assigns the most frequently occurring parameter tx controls the relative contribution of sense. (Miller et al., 1994) found that automatic candidate synsets in different number of translations: as the value of a increases, the I We use English WordNet version 1.6 - L 143 assignment of polysemous words in Brown If two Korean words have an IS-A relation, Corpus to senses in WordNet was 58% correct their translations in English should also with a heuristic of most frequently occurring have an IS-A relation. sense. We adopt these previous results to develop sense ordering heuristic. Korean word English word WordNet The sense ordering heuristic provides the maximum score to the most frequently used sense of a Ixanslation. The following formula explains the heuristic. H3(sO = max SO(s,,ew) ewEEW, where EW, = {ew I si ~ synset(ew) } Figure 3: IS-A relation ot SO(s,,ew) x~ Figure 3 explains IS-A relation heuristic. In figure 3, hkw is a hypemym of a Korean word kw where si ~ synset(ew) and hew is a translation of hkw and ew is a ^ synset(ew) is sorted by frequency translation of kw. ^ s, is the x- th synset in synset(ew) This heuristic assigns score 1 to the synsets which satisfy the above assumption according to the following formula: In this formula, x refers to the sense order of s in synset(ew): x is 1 when s, is the most H,(s,) = max 1R(si, ew) frequently used sense of ew. The information ew~EW, about the sense order of synsets of an English where EWi = {ewl si ~ synset(ew) } word was extracted from the WordNet. 0.8 IR(s,,ew)={; otherwisefflsa(s"si) prob 0.7 where si ~ synset(ew) , sj ~ synset(hew) 0.$ o.5 In this formula, lsA(s,,s 2) returns true if s, is a 0.4 kind of s 2. 0.3 2.5 Heuristic 5: Word Match This heuristic assumes that related concepts 0.2 i O will be expressed using the same content words. o.1 I Given two definitions - that of the bilingual O. #"- " "tl. A A = dictionary and that of the WordNet - this ! 2 ] 4 5 $ 7 8 9 ordm" heuristic computes the total amount of shared content words. Figure 2: Sense distribution in SemCor Hs(si) = max WM (si,ew) The value a=0.705 and fl=2.2 was acquired from a regression of Figure 2 semcor corpus2 where EW~ = (ewl s~ ~ synset(ew) } data distribution. WM (si, ew) = sim(X,Yi) 2.4 Heuristic 4: IS-A relation sim(X,Y) = IX n YI This heuristic is based on the following facts: Ix rl In this formula, X is the set of content words in 2 semcor is a sense tagged corpus from part of English examples of bilingual dictionary and Y is Brown corpus. 144 the set of content words of definition and example of the synset s, in WordNet. 2.6 Heuristic 6: Cooccurrence //~ Heur,st,c3 ~ ~K This heuristic uses cooccurrence measure ~ Heuristic4 ~ ('~'~"~ acquired from the sense tagged Korean definition sentences of bilingual dictionary. To build sense tagged corpus, we use the definition \ 1 x -H Ig2 l I Oeoi oo sentences which have monosemous translation [ Classfflcatzon I ~ -~" [ tree learning in bilingual dictionary. And we uses the 25 semantic tags of WordNet as sense tag : Figure 4: Training phase n6(s,) = max p(t, I x) xeDef Heuristic 2 with p =, - Z(l_a)/2 × ~'(1~ ~) Heuristic 3 n L=nklng or p(ti l x) = Freq(ti, x) HeunsUc 4 Discarding Freq(x) Heunstlc 5 Heunst=c 6 In this formula, Defis the set of content words of a Korean definition sentence, t is a semantic Figure 5: Mapping phase tag corresponding to the synset s and n refers to Freq(x).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Universal Or Variation? Semantic Networks in English and Chinese
    Universal or variation? Semantic networks in English and Chinese Understanding the structures of semantic networks can provide great insights into lexico- semantic knowledge representation. Previous work reveals small-world structure in English, the structure that has the following properties: short average path lengths between words and strong local clustering, with a scale-free distribution in which most nodes have few connections while a small number of nodes have many connections1. However, it is not clear whether such semantic network properties hold across human languages. In this study, we investigate the universal structures and cross-linguistic variations by comparing the semantic networks in English and Chinese. Network description To construct the Chinese and the English semantic networks, we used Chinese Open Wordnet2,3 and English WordNet4. The two wordnets have different word forms in Chinese and English but common word meanings. Word meanings are connected not only to word forms, but also to other word meanings if they form relations such as hypernyms and meronyms (Figure 1). 1. Cross-linguistic comparisons Analysis The large-scale structures of the Chinese and the English networks were measured with two key network metrics, small-worldness5 and scale-free distribution6. Results The two networks have similar size and both exhibit small-worldness (Table 1). However, the small-worldness is much greater in the Chinese network (σ = 213.35) than in the English network (σ = 83.15); this difference is primarily due to the higher average clustering coefficient (ACC) of the Chinese network. The scale-free distributions are similar across the two networks, as indicated by ANCOVA, F (1, 48) = 0.84, p = .37.
    [Show full text]
  • NL Assistant: a Toolkit for Developing Natural Language: Applications
    NL Assistant: A Toolkit for Developing Natural Language Applications Deborah A. Dahl, Lewis M. Norton, Ahmed Bouzid, and Li Li Unisys Corporation Introduction scale lexical resources have been integrated with the toolkit. These include Comlex and WordNet We will be demonstrating a toolkit for as well as additional, internally developed developing natural language-based applications resources. The second strategy is to provide easy and two applications. The goals of this toolkit to use editors for entering linguistic information. are to reduce development time and cost for natural language based applications by reducing Servers the amount of linguistic and programming work needed. Linguistic work has been reduced by Lexical information is supplied by four external integrating large-scale linguistics resources--- servers which are accessed by the natural Comlex (Grishman, et. al., 1993) and WordNet language engine during processing. Syntactic (Miller, 1990). Programming work is reduced by information is supplied by a lexical server based automating some of the programming tasks. The on the 50K word Comlex dictionary available toolkit is designed for both speech- and text- from the Linguistic Data Consortium. Semantic based interface applications. It runs in a information comes from two servers, a KB Windows NT environment. Applications can server based on the noun portion of WordNet run in either Windows NT or Unix. (70K concepts), and a semantics server containing case frame information for 2500 System Components English verbs. A denotations server using unique concept names generated for each The NL Assistant toolkit consists of WordNet synset at ISI links the words in the lexicon to the concepts in the KB.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarity Detection Using Latent Semantic Analysis Algorithm Priyanka R
    International Journal of Emerging Research in Management &Technology Research Article August ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-6, Issue-8) 2017 Similarity Detection Using Latent Semantic Analysis Algorithm Priyanka R. Patil Shital A. Patil PG Student, Department of Computer Engineering, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Engineering, North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India Maharashtra, India Abstract— imilarity View is an application for visually comparing and exploring multiple models of text and collection of document. Friendbook finds ways of life of clients from client driven sensor information, measures the S closeness of ways of life amongst clients, and prescribes companions to clients if their ways of life have high likeness. Roused by demonstrate a clients day by day life as life records, from their ways of life are separated by utilizing the Latent Dirichlet Allocation Algorithm. Manual techniques can't be utilized for checking research papers, as the doled out commentator may have lacking learning in the exploration disciplines. For different subjective views, causing possible misinterpretations. An urgent need for an effective and feasible approach to check the submitted research papers with support of automated software. A method like text mining method come to solve the problem of automatically checking the research papers semantically. The proposed method to finding the proper similarity of text from the collection of documents by using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) with synonym algorithm which is used to find synonyms of text index wise by using the English wordnet dictionary, another algorithm is LSA without synonym used to find the similarity of text based on index.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Wordnet: an On-Line Lexical Database
    Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database George A. Miller, Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross, and Katherine Miller (Revised August 1993) WordNet is an on-line lexical reference system whose design is inspired by current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory. English nouns, verbs, and adjectives are organized into synonym sets, each representing one underlying lexical concept. Different relations link the synonym sets. Standard alphabetical procedures for organizing lexical information put together words that are spelled alike and scatter words with similar or related meanings haphazardly through the list. Unfortunately, there is no obvious alternative, no other simple way for lexicographers to keep track of what has been done or for readers to ®nd the word they are looking for. But a frequent objection to this solution is that ®nding things on an alphabetical list can be tedious and time-consuming. Many people who would like to refer to a dictionary decide not to bother with it because ®nding the information would interrupt their work and break their train of thought. In this age of computers, however, there is an answer to that complaint. One obvious reason to resort to on-line dictionariesÐlexical databases that can be read by computersÐis that computers can search such alphabetical lists much faster than people can. A dictionary entry can be available as soon as the target word is selected or typed into the keyboard. Moreover, since dictionaries are printed from tapes that are read by computers, it is a relatively simple matter to convert those tapes into the appropriate kind of lexical database.
    [Show full text]
  • Web Search Result Clustering with Babelnet
    Web Search Result Clustering with BabelNet Marek Kozlowski Maciej Kazula OPI-PIB OPI-PIB [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 2 Related Work In this paper we present well-known 2.1 Search Result Clustering search result clustering method enriched with BabelNet information. The goal is The goal of text clustering in information retrieval to verify how Babelnet/Babelfy can im- is to discover groups of semantically related docu- prove the clustering quality in the web ments. Contextual descriptions (snippets) of docu- search results domain. During the evalua- ments returned by a search engine are short, often tion we tested three algorithms (Bisecting incomplete, and highly biased toward the query, so K-Means, STC, Lingo). At the first stage, establishing a notion of proximity between docu- we performed experiments only with tex- ments is a challenging task that is called Search tual features coming from snippets. Next, Result Clustering (SRC). Search Results Cluster- we introduced new semantic features from ing (SRC) is a specific area of documents cluster- BabelNet (as disambiguated synsets, cate- ing. gories and glosses describing synsets, or Approaches to search result clustering can be semantic edges) in order to verify how classified as data-centric or description-centric they influence on the clustering quality (Carpineto, 2009). of the search result clustering. The al- The data-centric approach (as Bisecting K- gorithms were evaluated on AMBIENT Means) focuses more on the problem of data clus- dataset in terms of the clustering quality. tering, rather than presenting the results to the user. Other data-centric methods use hierarchical 1 Introduction agglomerative clustering (Maarek, 2000) that re- In the previous years, Web clustering engines places single terms with lexical affinities (2-grams (Carpineto, 2009) have been proposed as a solu- of words) as features, or exploit link information tion to the issue of lexical ambiguity in Informa- (Zhang, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Sethesaurus: Wordnet in Software Engineering
    This is the author's version of an article that has been published in this journal. Changes were made to this version by the publisher prior to publication. The final version of record is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2940439 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015 1 SEthesaurus: WordNet in Software Engineering Xiang Chen, Member, IEEE, Chunyang Chen, Member, IEEE, Dun Zhang, and Zhenchang Xing, Member, IEEE, Abstract—Informal discussions on social platforms (e.g., Stack Overflow, CodeProject) have accumulated a large body of programming knowledge in the form of natural language text. Natural language process (NLP) techniques can be utilized to harvest this knowledge base for software engineering tasks. However, consistent vocabulary for a concept is essential to make an effective use of these NLP techniques. Unfortunately, the same concepts are often intentionally or accidentally mentioned in many different morphological forms (such as abbreviations, synonyms and misspellings) in informal discussions. Existing techniques to deal with such morphological forms are either designed for general English or mainly resort to domain-specific lexical rules. A thesaurus, which contains software-specific terms and commonly-used morphological forms, is desirable to perform normalization for software engineering text. However, constructing this thesaurus in a manual way is a challenge task. In this paper, we propose an automatic unsupervised approach to build such a thesaurus. In particular, we first identify software-specific terms by utilizing a software-specific corpus (e.g., Stack Overflow) and a general corpus (e.g., Wikipedia). Then we infer morphological forms of software-specific terms by combining distributed word semantics, domain-specific lexical rules and transformations.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing Based Generator of Testing Instruments
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 9-2017 NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED GENERATOR OF TESTING INSTRUMENTS Qianqian Wang Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Other Computer Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Wang, Qianqian, "NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED GENERATOR OF TESTING INSTRUMENTS" (2017). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 576. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/576 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED GENERATOR OF TESTING INSTRUMENTS A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the DeGree Master of Science in Computer Science by Qianqian Wang September 2017 NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED GENERATOR OF TESTING INSTRUMENTS A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Qianqian Wang September 2017 Approved by: Dr. Kerstin VoiGt, Advisor, Computer Science and EnGineerinG Dr. TonG Lai Yu, Committee Member Dr. George M. Georgiou, Committee Member © 2017 Qianqian Wang ABSTRACT Natural LanGuaGe ProcessinG (NLP) is the field of study that focuses on the interactions between human lanGuaGe and computers. By “natural lanGuaGe” we mean a lanGuaGe that is used for everyday communication by humans. Different from proGramminG lanGuaGes, natural lanGuaGes are hard to be defined with accurate rules. NLP is developinG rapidly and it has been widely used in different industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Natural Language Toolkit Tutorial
    Natural Language Processing Toolkit i Natural Language Processing Toolkit About the Tutorial Language is a method of communication with the help of which we can speak, read and write. Natural Language Processing (NLP) is the sub field of computer science especially Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is concerned about enabling computers to understand and process human language. We have various open-source NLP tools but NLTK (Natural Language Toolkit) scores very high when it comes to the ease of use and explanation of the concept. The learning curve of Python is very fast and NLTK is written in Python so NLTK is also having very good learning kit. NLTK has incorporated most of the tasks like tokenization, stemming, Lemmatization, Punctuation, Character Count, and Word count. It is very elegant and easy to work with. Audience This tutorial will be useful for graduates, post-graduates, and research students who either have an interest in NLP or have this subject as a part of their curriculum. The reader can be a beginner or an advanced learner. Prerequisites The reader must have basic knowledge about artificial intelligence. He/she should also be aware of basic terminologies used in English grammar and Python programming concepts. Copyright & Disclaimer Copyright 2019 by Tutorials Point (I) Pvt. Ltd. All the content and graphics published in this e-book are the property of Tutorials Point (I) Pvt. Ltd. The user of this e-book is prohibited to reuse, retain, copy, distribute or republish any contents or a part of contents of this e-book in any manner without written consent of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling and Encoding Traditional Wordlists for Machine Applications
    Modeling and Encoding Traditional Wordlists for Machine Applications Shakthi Poornima Jeff Good Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University at Buffalo University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY USA Buffalo, NY USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Clearly, descriptive linguistic resources can be This paper describes work being done on of potential value not just to traditional linguis- the modeling and encoding of a legacy re- tics, but also to computational linguistics. The source, the traditional descriptive wordlist, difficulty, however, is that the kinds of resources in ways that make its data accessible to produced in the course of linguistic description NLP applications. We describe an abstract are typically not easily exploitable in NLP appli- model for traditional wordlist entries and cations. Nevertheless, in the last decade or so, then provide an instantiation of the model it has become widely recognized that the devel- in RDF/XML which makes clear the re- opment of new digital methods for encoding lan- lationship between our wordlist database guage data can, in principle, not only help descrip- and interlingua approaches aimed towards tive linguists to work more effectively but also al- machine translation, and which also al- low them, with relatively little extra effort, to pro- lows for straightforward interoperation duce resources which can be straightforwardly re- with data from full lexicons. purposed for, among other things, NLP (Simons et al., 2004; Farrar and Lewis, 2007). 1 Introduction Despite this, it has proven difficult to create When looking at the relationship between NLP significant electronic descriptive resources due to and linguistics, it is typical to focus on the dif- the complex and specific problems inevitably as- ferent approaches taken with respect to issues sociated with the conversion of legacy data.
    [Show full text]
  • An Application of Latent Semantic Analysis to Word Sense Discrimination for Words with Related and Unrelated Meanings
    An Application of Latent Semantic Analysis to Word Sense Discrimination for Words with Related and Unrelated Meanings Juan Pino and Maxine Eskenazi (jmpino, max)@cs.cmu.edu Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA Abstract We present an application of Latent Semantic Analysis to word sense discrimination within a tutor for English vocabulary learning. We attempt to match the meaning of a word in a document with the meaning of the same word in a fill-in-the-blank question. We compare the performance of the Lesk algorithm to La- tent Semantic Analysis. We also compare the Figure 1: Example of cloze question. performance of Latent Semantic Analysis on a set of words with several unrelated meanings and on a set of words having both related and To define the problem formally, given a target unrelated meanings. word w, a string r (the reading) containing w and n strings q1, ..., qn (the sentences used for the ques- 1 Introduction tions) each containing w, find the strings qi where In this paper, we present an application of Latent the meaning of w is closest to its meaning in r. Semantic Analysis (LSA) to word sense discrimi- We make the problem simpler by selecting only one nation (WSD) within a tutor for English vocabu- question. lary learning for non-native speakers. This tutor re- This problem is challenging because the context trieves documents from the Web that contain tar- defined by cloze questions is short. Furthermore, get words a student needs to learn and that are at a word can have only slight variations in meaning an appropriate reading level (Collins-Thompson and that even humans find sometimes difficult to distin- Callan, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Word Sense Disambiguation Using Wordnet
    WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION USING WORDNET by Anıl Can Kara & O˘guzhanYetimo˘glu Submitted to the Department of Computer Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science Undergraduate Program in Computer Engineering Bo˘gazi¸ciUniversity Spring 2019 ii WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION USING WORDNET APPROVED BY: Prof. Tunga G¨ung¨or . (Project Supervisor) DATE OF APPROVAL: 16.05.2019 iii ABSTRACT WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION USING WORDNET The concept of sense ambiguity means that a word which has more than one meaning is used in a context and it needs to be clarified that which sense is actually referred. Word sense disambiguation (WSD) is the concept of identifying which sense of a word is used in a sentence or context. Sense disambiguation is a problem that can be overcomed easily by complex structures of human brain. In computer sciences, however, it can be solved by using appropriate algorithms according to the application of words. In computer sciences, this problem is one of the most important and current issues in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Word sense disambiguation is a very important task in natural language pro- cessing applications such as machine translation and information retrieval. In this paper, different approaches to this problem are described and summarized, and an- other method for Turkish using WordNet is proposed. In this method, Lesk algorithm is used but it is extended in a way that it exploits the hierarchical structure of WordNet. iv OZET¨ TURKC¸E¨ WORDNET ILE_ KELIME_ ANLAMININ BELIRLENMES_ I_ Anlam belirsizli˘gikavramı, do˘galdillerde ¸cok¸cag¨or¨ulen,bir kelimenin birden fazla anlama sahip olması durumudur.
    [Show full text]
  • Using a Weighted Semantic Network for Lexical Semantic Relatedness
    Using a Weighted Semantic Network for Lexical Semantic Relatedness Reda Siblini Leila Kosseim Concordia University Concordia University 1400 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West 1400 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8 Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract lexicon-based, corpus-based, and hybrid ap- proaches. The measurement of semantic relatedness Lexicon-based methods use the features of a between two words is an important met- lexicon to measure semantic relatedness. The ric for many natural language processing most frequently used lexicon is Princeton’s applications. In this paper, we present a WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998) which groups words novel approach for measuring semantic re- into synonyms sets (called synsets) and includes latedness that is based on a weighted se- various semantic relations between those synsets, mantic network. This approach explores in addition to their definitions (or glosses). the use of a lexicon, semantic relation WordNet contains 26 semantic relations that types as weights, and word definitions include: hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, and as a basis to calculate semantic related- entailment. ness. Our results show that our approach To measure relatedness, most of the lexicon-based outperforms many lexicon-based methods approaches rely on the structure of the lexicon, to semantic relatedness, especially on the such as the semantic link path, depth (Leacock TOEFL synonym test, achieving an accu- and Chodorow, 1998; Wu and Palmer, 1994), racy of 91.25%. direction (Hirst and St-Onge, 1998), or type (Tsat- saronis et al., 2010). Most of these approaches 1 Introduction exploit the hypernym/hyponym relations, but a few approaches have also included the use of Lexical semantic relatedness is a measurement other semantic relations.
    [Show full text]