2 The performance of the original method proposed in <cite>Moldovan et al. (2004)</cite> is considered as a benchmark. .217 .496 .544 .552 .573 .562 .588 .568 .557 .197 .142 .547 .547 533 .573 .600 .606 .586 .607 .630 .467 .453 IA .507 .581 .595 .608 .649 .671 .653 .629 .645 .500 .500 PP .655 .667 .679 .691 .679 .737 .700 .690 .687 .655 .655 OE .558 .636 .623 .610 .662 .645 .662 .625 .712 .558 .558 TT .636 .697 .727 .712 .742 .766 .732 .717 .650 .515 .394 PW .634 .620 .690 .690 .629 .657 .585 .731 .630 .633 .634 CC .514 .676 .703 .689 .689 .676 .667 .647 .698 .446 .514 All .579 .632 .649 .653 .662 .679 .654 .661 .667 .541 .534 Table 4 : Results for each of the 2-way classification tasks: B = baseline, M+ = <cite>Moldovan et al. (2004)</cite> method, H i = ith-order Hypernym, O = Hyponym and S = Sister word; the best performing system is indicated in boldface and that of extended sense collocation as proposed in this paper.