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 2121147707 2063330778 2035408139
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. In word sense disambiguation (WSD), the heuristic of choosing the most common sense is extremely powerful because the distribution of the senses of a word is often skewed. The problem with using the predominant, or first sense heuristic, aside from the fact that it does not take surrounding context into account, is that it assumes some quantity of hand-tagged data. Whilst there are a few hand-tagged corpora available for some languages, one would expect the frequency distribution of the senses of words, particularly topical words, to depend on the genre and domain of the text under consideration. We present work on the use of a thesaurus acquired from raw textual corpora and the WordNet similarity package to find predominant noun senses automatically. The acquired predominant senses give a precision of 64 on the nouns of the SENSEVAL-2 English all-words task. This is a very promising result given that our method does not require any hand-tagged text, such as SemCor. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our method discovers appropriate predominant senses for words from two domain-specific corpora. Distributions of the senses of words are often highly skewed. This fact is exploited by word sense disambiguation (WSD) systems which back off to the predominant sense of a word when contextual clues are not strong enough. The domain of a document has a strong influence on the sense distribution of words, but it is not feasible to produce large manually annotated corpora for every domain of interest. In this paper we describe the construction of three sense annotated corpora in different domains for a sample of English words. We apply an existing method for acquiring predominant sense information automatically from raw text, and for our sample demonstrate that (1) acquiring such information automatically from a mixed-domain corpus is more accurate than deriving it from SemCor, and (2) acquiring it automatically from text in the same domain as the target domain performs best by a large margin. We also show that for an all words WSD task this automatic method is best focussed on words that are salient to the domain, and on words with a different acquired predominant sense in that domain compared to that acquired from a balanced corpus. A number of researchers in text processing have independently observed that people can consistently determine in which of several given senses a word is being used in text, simply by examining the half dozen or so words just before and just after the word in focus. The question arises whether the same task can be accomplished by mechanical means. Experimental results are presented which suggest an affirmative answer to this query. Three separate methods of discriminating English word senses are compared information-theoretically. Findings include a strong indication of the power of domain-specific content analysis of text, as opposed to domain-general approaches.