Research Paper: A Multi-aspect Comparison Study of Supervised Word Sense Disambiguation

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) naïve 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.

[1]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Corpus-Based Statistical Sense Resolution , 1993, HLT.

[2]  D. Kibler,et al.  Instance-based learning algorithms , 2004, Machine Learning.

[3]  Janyce Wiebe,et al.  Word-Sense Disambiguation Using Decomposable Models , 1994, ACL.

[4]  Hongfang Liu,et al.  Research Paper: Automatic Resolution of Ambiguous Terms Based on Machine Learning and Conceptual Relations in the UMLS , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[5]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming for Natural Language Processing , 1996, Inductive Logic Programming Workshop.

[6]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Integrating Multiple Knowledge Sources to Disambiguate Word Sense: An Exemplar-Based Approach , 1996, ACL.

[7]  Hongfang Liu,et al.  Disambiguating Ambiguous Biomedical Terms in Biomedical Narrative Text: An Unsupervised Method , 2001, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[8]  Lluis Marquez,et al.  Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing , 2000 .

[9]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Very Large Neural Networks for Word Sense Disambiguation , 1990, ECAI.

[10]  Marc Weeber,et al.  Developing a test collection for biomedical word sense disambiguation , 2001, AMIA.

[11]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  Framework and Results for English SENSEVAL , 2000, Comput. Humanit..

[12]  Lluís Màrquez i Villodre,et al.  Boosting Applied to Word Sense Disambiguation , 2000, ArXiv.

[13]  J. Jorgensen.  The psychological reality of word senses , 1990 .

[14]  Shlomo Argamon,et al.  Minimizing Manual Annotation Cost in Supervised Training from Corpora , 1996, ACL.

[15]  George A. Miller,et al.  Using Corpus Statistics and WordNet Relations for Sense Identification , 1998, CL.

[16]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Word Sense Disambiguation: The State of the Art , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

[17]  Lluís Màrquez i Villodre,et al.  Naive Bayes and Exemplar-based Approaches to Word Sense Disambiguation Revisited , 2000, ECAI.

[18]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The zero-frequency problem: Estimating the probabilities of novel events in adaptive text compression , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[19]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Corpus-Based Approaches to Semantic Interpretation in Natural Language Processing , 1997 .

[20]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Disambiguating Highly Ambiguous Words , 1998, CL.

[21]  Lluís Màrquez Villodre.  Machine learning and natural language processing , 2000 .

[22]  David Yarowsky,et al.  DECISION LISTS FOR LEXICAL AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION: Application to Accent Restoration in Spanish and French , 1994, ACL.

[23]  Pavel Brazdil,et al.  Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning , 1993 .

[24]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Bias in Machine Learning , 1996, EMNLP.

[25]  Richard O. Duda,et al.  Pattern classification and scene analysis , 1974, A Wiley-Interscience publication.

[26]  Kentaro Inui,et al.  Selective Sampling for Example-based Word Sense Disambiguation , 1998, CL.

[27]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Getting Serious about Word Sense Disambiguation , 2002 .

[28]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Exemplar-Based Word Sense Disambiguation” Some Recent Improvements , 1997, EMNLP.