This paper describes an experimental comparison of three unsupervised learning algorithms that distinguish the sense of an ambiguous word in untagged text. The methods described in this paper, McQuitty's similarity analysis, Ward's minimum-variance method, and the EM algorithm, assign each instance of an ambiguous word to a known sense definition based solely on the values of automatically identifiable features in text. These methods and feature sets are found to be more successful in disambiguating nouns rather than adjectives or verbs. Overall, the most accurate of these procedures is McQuitty's similarity analysis in combination with a high dimensional feature set.
While @cite_23 does not discuss distinguishing more than 2 senses of a word, there is no immediate reason to doubt that the one sense per collocation'' rule @cite_24 would still hold for a larger number of senses. In future work we will evaluate using the one sense per collocation'' rule to seed our various methods. This may help in dealing with very skewed distributions of senses since we currently select collocations based simply on frequency.
@cite_24 @cite_23
2047620598 2101210369
Previous work [Gale, Church and Yarowsky, 1992] showed that with high probability a polysemous word has one sense per discourse. In this paper we show that for certain definitions of collocation, a polysemous word exhibits essentially only one sense per collocation. We test this empirical hypothesis for several definitions of sense and collocation, and discover that it holds with 90--99 accuracy for binary ambiguities. We utilize this property in a disambiguation algorithm that achieves precision of 92 using combined models of very local context. A consideration of problems engendered by the use of concordances to study additional word senses. The use of factor analysis as a research tool in lexicography is discussed. It is shown that this method provides information not obtainable through other approaches. This includes provision of several major senses for each word, an indication of the relationship between collocational patterns, & a more detailed analysis of the senses themselves. Sample factor analyses for the collocates of certain & right are presented & discussed. 3 Tables, 11 References. B. Annesser Murray This paper presents an unsupervised learning algorithm for sense disambiguation that, when trained on unannotated English text, rivals the performance of supervised techniques that require time-consuming hand annotations. The algorithm is based on two powerful constraints---that words tend to have one sense per discourse and one sense per collocation---exploited in an iterative bootstrapping procedure. Tested accuracy exceeds 96 . Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to investigate relations among different aspects in supervised word sense disambiguation (WSD; supervised machine learning for disambiguating the sense of a term in a context) and compare supervised WSD in the biomedical domain with that in the general English domain. Methods The study involves three data sets (a biomedical abbreviation data set, a general biomedical term data set, and a general English data set). The authors implemented three machine-learning algorithms, including (1) naive Bayes (NBL) and decision lists (TDLL), (2) their adaptation of decision lists (ODLL), and (3) their mixed supervised learning (MSL). There were six feature representations (various combinations of collocations, bag of words, oriented bag of words, etc.) and five window sizes (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). Results Supervised WSD is suitable only when there are enough sense-tagged instances with at least a few dozens of instances for each sense. Collocations combined with neighboring words are appropriate selections for the context. For terms with unrelated biomedical senses, a large window size such as the whole paragraph should be used, while for general English words a moderate window size between 4 and 10 should be used. The performance of the authors' implementation of decision list classifiers for abbreviations was better than that of traditional decision list classifiers. However, the opposite held for the other two sets. Also, the authors' mixed supervised learning was stable and generally better than others for all sets. Conclusion From this study, it was found that different aspects of supervised WSD depend on each other. The experiment method presented in the study can be used to select the best supervised WSD classifier for each ambiguous term.