Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - 1991
DOI: 10.3115/981344.981378
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Word-sense disambiguation using statistical methods

Abstract: We describe a statistical technique for assigning senses to words. An instance of a word is assigned a sense by asking a question about the context in which the word appears. The question is constructed to have high mutual information with the translation of that instance in another language. When we incorporated this method of assigning senses into our statistical machine translation system, the error rate of the system decreased by thirteen percent.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
108
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 223 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
108
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Earlier work on this problem with general language terms (e.g., disambiguating between the use of the word bank as a financial institution and as the slope next to a river) proposed modeling the context of each ambiguous word as a vector of neighboring words (Brown et al, 1991;Gale et al, 1992); for example, words such as "teller" and "money" would likely indicate that a nearby ambiguous bank referred to the financial institution sense. These methods obtain classification accuracies (percentage of correctly disambiguated cases) of 65-92% depending on the word being disambiguated and the alternative senses (choosing between bank/institution and bank/river is much easier than choosing between bank/institution and bank/building (Buitelaar, 1998)).…”
Section: Unsupervised Learning Versus Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier work on this problem with general language terms (e.g., disambiguating between the use of the word bank as a financial institution and as the slope next to a river) proposed modeling the context of each ambiguous word as a vector of neighboring words (Brown et al, 1991;Gale et al, 1992); for example, words such as "teller" and "money" would likely indicate that a nearby ambiguous bank referred to the financial institution sense. These methods obtain classification accuracies (percentage of correctly disambiguated cases) of 65-92% depending on the word being disambiguated and the alternative senses (choosing between bank/institution and bank/river is much easier than choosing between bank/institution and bank/building (Buitelaar, 1998)).…”
Section: Unsupervised Learning Versus Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Without any notion of syntax, such as phrases, non-local dependencies are extremely difficult to capture and without any morphological analysis, related words are treated as completely separate types. Huge improvements were seen even when simple morphological analysis was added to the translation models (Brown et al, 1991).…”
Section: From Word-to Phrase-based Translation Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although WordNet expansion introduces a certain amount of noise into our data, it does improve classification as we showed in Section 5.2. The use of word sense disambiguation techniques [2] could be useful to overcome such issues. Furthermore, other semantic ontologies such as the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) [20] have been created based on WordNet and may be provide useful tools for extracting better semantic meaning from questions.…”
Section: Wordnet Insufficienciesmentioning
confidence: 99%