程序代写代做代考 Excel Bayesian algorithm Computational Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Computational
Linguistics
Copyright © 2017 Graeme
Hirst and Gerald Penn.
All rights reserved.
8
8. Word sense
disambiguation
Gerald Penn
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
CSC 2501 / 485
Fall 2018
Reading: Jurafsky & Martin: 20.1–5.
Word sense disambiguation
• Word sense disambiguation (WSD), lexical
disambiguation, resolving lexical ambiguity,
lexical ambiguity resolution.
2
How big is the problem?
• Most words of English have only one sense.
(62% in Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary
English; 79% in WordNet.)
• But the others tend to have several senses.
(Avg 3.83 in LDOCE; 2.96 in WordNet.)
• Ambiguous words are more frequently used
(In British National Corpus, 84% of instances have
more than one sense in WordNet.)
• Some senses are more frequent than others.
3
4
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
W
o
rd
N
e
t
s
e
n
s
e
s
p
e
r
w
o
rd
Words occurring in the British National Corpus are plotted on the horizontal
axis in rank order by frequency in the corpus. Number of WordNet senses per
word is plotted on the vertical axis. Each point represents a bin of 100 words
and the average number of senses of words in the bin.
Edmonds, Philip. “Disambiguation, Lexical.” Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (second edition), Elsevier,
2006, pp 607–623.
5
P
ro
p
o
rt
io
n
o
f
o
c
c
u
rr
e
n
c
e
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
s
e
n
s
e
Number of WordNet senses per word
In each column, the senses are ordered by frequency, normalized per word,
and averaged over all words with that number of senses.
Edmonds, Philip. “Disambiguation, Lexical.” Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (second edition), Elsevier,
2006, pp 607–623.
Sense inventory of a word
• Dictionaries, WordNet list senses of a word.
• Often, no agreement on proper sense-
division of words.
• Don’t want sense-divisions to be too coarse-
grained or too fine-grained.
6
Frequent criticism
of WordNet
7
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (encyclopedic edition)
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd edition)
8
O
A
L
D
A
H
D
E
L
What counts as the right answer?
• Often, no agreement on which sense a given
word-token is.
• Some tokens seem to have two or more
senses at the same time.
9
10
Which senses are these? 1
• image
1. a picture formed in the mind;
2. a picture formed of an object in front of a mirror
or lens;
3. the general opinion about a person, organ-
ization, etc, formed or intentionally created in
people’s minds;
[and three other senses]
“… of the Garonne, which becomes an unforgettable
image. This is a very individual film, mannered, …”
Example from: Kilgarriff, Adam. “Dictionary word sense distinctions: An enquiry into their nature.”
Computers and the Humanities, 26: 365–387, 1993. Definitions from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English, 2nd edition, 1987.
11
Which senses are these? 2
• distinction
1. the fact of being different;
2. the quality of being unusually good; excellence.
“… before the war, shares with Rilke and Kafka
the distinction of having origins which seem to
escape …”
Example from: Kilgarriff, Adam. “Dictionary word sense distinctions: An enquiry into their nature.”
Computers and the Humanities, 26: 365–387, 1993. Definitions from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English, 2nd edition, 1987.
What counts as the right answer?
• Therefore, hard to get a definitive sense-
tagged corpus.
• And hard to get human baseline for
performance.
• Human annotators agree about 70–95% of the
time.
[Depending on word, sense inventory, context size, discussions, etc.]
12
Baseline algorithms 1
• Assume that input is PoS-tagged. Why?
• Obvious baseline algorithm:
Pick most-likely sense (or pick one at
random).
• Accuracy: 39–62%
13
Baseline algorithms 2
• Simple tricks (1):
Notice when ambiguous word is in
unambiguous fixed phrase.
• private school, private eye.
(But maybe not right in all right.)
14
Baseline algorithms 3
• Simple tricks (2):
“One sense per discourse”:
A homonymous word is rarely used in more
than one sense in the same text.
• If word occurs multiple times, …
• Not true for polysemy.
• Simple tricks (3):
Lesk’s algorithm (see below).
15
“Context” 1
• Meaning of word in use depends on
(determined by) its context.
• Circumstantial context.
• Textual context.
• Complete text.
• Sentence, paragraph.
• Window of n words.
16
“Context” 2
• Words of context are also ambiguous; need
for mutual constraints; often ignored in
practice.
• “One sense per collocation”.
• Collocation: words that tend to co-occur
together.
17
Selectional preferences
• Constraints imposed by one word meaning on
another—especially verbs on nouns.
Eagle Airways which has applied to serve New York …
Plain old bean soup, served daily since the turn of the
century …
I don’t mind washing dishes now and then.
Sprouted grains and seeds are used in preparing salads and
dishes such as chop suey.
It was the most popular dish served in the Ladies’ Grill.
• Some words select more strongly than others.
see (weak) — drink (moderate) — elapse (strong)
18
Examples from the Brown University Standard Corpus of Present-Day American English.
Limitations of selectional preferences
• Negation:
• You can’t eat good intentions.
It’s nonsense to say that a book elapsed.
I am not a crook. (Richard Nixon, 17 Nov 1973)
• Odd events:
• Los Angeles secretary Jannene Swift married a
50-pound pet rock in a formal ceremony in
Lafayette Park. (Newspaper report)
19
Limitations of selectional preferences
• Metaphor:
The issue was acute because the exiled Polish
Government in London, supported in the main by
Britain, was still competing with the new Lublin
Government formed behind the Red Army. More time
was spent in trying to marry these incompatibles
than over any subject discussed at Yalta. … The
application of these formulae could not please both
sides, for they really attempted to marry the
impossible to the inevitable.
20
Text from the Brown Corpus
Limitations of selectional preferences
• In practice, attempts to induce selectional
preferences or to use them have not been
very successful.
• Apply in only about 20% of cases, achieve about
50% accuracy. (Mihalcea 2006, McCarthy & Carroll 2003)
• At best, they are a coarse filter for other methods.
21
Lesk’s algorithm 1
• Sense si of ambiguous word w is likely to be the
intended sense if many of the words used in the
dictionary definition of si are also used in the
definitions of words in the context window.
• For each sense si of w, let Di be the bag of words in
its dictionary definition.
• Bag of words: unordered set of words in a string,
excepting those that are very frequent (stop list).
• Let B be the bag of words of the dictionary definitions
of all senses of all words v ≠ w in the context window
of w. (Might also (or instead) include all v in B.)
• Choose the sense si that maximizes overlap(Di,B).
24
Lesk’s algorithm Example
• … the keyboard of the terminal was …
terminal
1. a point on an electrical device at which electric current enters or
leaves.
2. where transport vehicles load or unload passengers or goods.
3. an input-output device providing access to a computer.
keyboard
1. set of keys on a piano or organ or typewriter or typesetting
machine or computer or the like.
2. an arrangement of hooks on which keys or locks are hung.
25
Lesk’s algorithm 2
• Many variants possible on what is included in
Di and B.
• E.g., include the examples in dictionary definitions.
• E.g., include other manually tagged example texts.
• PoS tags on definitions.
• Give extra weight to infrequent words occurring in
the bags.
• Results: Simple versions of Lesk achieve
accuracy around 50–60%; Lesk plus simple
smarts gets to nearly 70%.
26
•
• Typical problem: We have B, and want to
know which A is now most likely.
Math revision: Bayes’s rule
27
Supervised Bayesian methods 1
• Classify contexts according to which sense of
each ambiguous word they tend to be
associated with.
• Bayes decision rule: Pick sense, sj, that is most
probable in given context, j = argmaxi P(si | C).
• Bag-of-words model of context.
• For each sense sk of w in the given context C,
we know the prior probability P(sk) of the
sense, but require its posterior probability
P(sk|C).
28
• Want sense s′ of word w in context C such
that P(s′|C) > P(sk|C) for all sk ≠ s′.
Supervised Bayesian methods 2
29
where …
• Naïve Bayes assumption: Attributes vj of
context C of sense sk of w are conditionally
independent of one another. Hence
Supervised Bayesian methods 3
30
Supervised Bayesian methods 4
and c(vj, sk) is the number of times vj occurs in the
context window of sk.
31
Training corpora for supervised WSD
• Problem: Need large training corpus with
each ambiguous word tagged with its sense.
• Expensive, time-consuming human work.
• “Large” for a human is small for WSD training.
• Some sense-tagged corpora:
• SemCor: 700K PoS-tagged tokens (200K
WordNet-sense-tagged) of Brown corpus and a
short novel.
• Singapore DSO corpus: About 200 “interesting”
word-types tagged in about 2M tokens of Brown
corpus and Wall Street Journal.
32
Evaluation
• Systems based on naïve Bayes methods
have achieved 62–72% accuracy for selected
words with adequate training data.
(Màrquez etal 2006, Edmonds 2006)
33
Yarowsky 1995
Unsupervised decision-list learning
• Decision list: ordered list of strong, specific
clues to senses of homonym.*
34
*Yarowsky calls them “polysemous words”.
35
Decision list for bass:
LogL Context Sense
10.98 fish in ±k words FISH
10.92 striped bass FISH
9.70 guitar in ±k words MUSIC
9.20 bass player MUSIC
9.10 piano in ±k words MUSIC
8.87 sea bass FISH
8.49 play bass MUSIC
8.31 river in ±k words FISH
7.71 on bass MUSIC
5.32 bass are FISH
Yarowsky 1995 Basic ideas
• Separate decision list learned for each
homonym.
• Bootstrapped from seeds, very large corpus,
heuristics.
• One sense per discourse.
• One sense per collocation.
• Uses supervised classification algorithm to
build decision-list.
• Training corpus: 460M words, mixed texts.
36
Yarowsky 1995 Method 1
• 1–2. Get data (instances of target word);
choose seed rules; apply them.
37
automated manufacturing plant in Fremont
vast manufacturing plant and distribution
chemical manufacturing plant , producing viscose
keep a manufacturing plant profitable without
computer manufacturing plant and adjacent
discovered at a St. Louis plant manufacturing
copper manufacturing plant found that they
copper wire manufacturing plant , for example
s cement manufacturing plant in Alpena
used to strain microscopic plant life from the
zonal distribution of plant life .
close-up studies of plant life and natural
too rapid growth of aquatic plant life in water
the proliferation of plant and animal life
establishment phase of the plant virus life cycle
that divide life into plant and animal kingdom
many dangers to plant and animal life
mammals . Animal and plant life are delicately
vinyl chloride monomer plant , which is
molecules found in plant and animal tissue
Nissan car and truck plant in Japan is
and Golgi apparatus of plant and animal cells
union responses to plant closures .
cell types found in the plant kingdom are
company said the plant is still operating
Although thousands of plant and animal species
animal rather than plant tissues can be
used to strain microscopic plant life from the
zonal distribution of plant life .
close-up studies of plant life and natural
too rapid growth of aquatic plant life in water
the proliferation of plant and animal life
establishment phase of the plant virus life cycle
that divide life into plant and animal kingdom
many dangers to plant and animal life
mammals . Animal and plant life are delicately
vinyl chloride monomer plant , which is
molecules found in plant and animal tissue
Nissan car and truck plant in Japan is
and Golgi apparatus of plant and animal cells
union responses to plant closures .
cell types found in the plant kingdom are
company said the plant is still operating
Although thousands of plant and animal species
animal rather than plant tissues can be
38
39
Initial state after use of seed rules
Figure from Yarowsky 1995.
Yarowsky 1995 Method 2
• 3. Iterate:
• 3a. Create a new decision-list classifier:
supervised training with the data tagged so far.
Looks for collocations as features for classification.
• 3b. Apply new classifier to whole data set, tag
some new instances.
• 3c. Optional: Apply one-sense-per-discourse rule
wherever one sense now dominates a text.
40
41
Intermediate state
Figure from Yarowsky 1995.
42
Final state
Figure from Yarowsky 1995.
Yarowsky 1995: Method 3
• 4. Stop when converged. (Optional: Apply one-
sense-per-discourse constraint.)
• 5. Use final decision list for WSD.
43
Yarowsky 1995 Evaluation
• Experiments: 12 homonymous words.
• 400–12,000 hand-tagged instances of each.
• Baseline (most frequent sense) = 63.9%.
• Best results, avg 96.5% accuracy.
• Base seed on dictionary definition; use one-sense-
per-discourse heuristic.
• As good as or better than supervised algorithm
used directly on fully labelled data.
44
Yarowsky 1995 Discussion 1
45
• Strength of method:
• The one-sense heuristics.
• Use of precise lexical and positional information.
• Huge training corpus.
• Bootstrapping: Unsupervised use of supervised
algorithm.
• Disadvantages:
• Train each word separately.
• Homonyms only. Why?
Yarowsky 1995 Discussion 2
46
• Not limited to regular words; e.g., in speech
synthesis system:
• / as fraction or date:
3/4 → “three-quarters” or “third of April”.
• Roman number as cardinal or ordinal:
chapter VII → “chapter seven”;
Henry VII → “Henry the seventh”.
Yarowsky, David. “Homograph disambiguation in speech synthesis.” In Jan van Santen, Richard Sproat, Joseph
Olive and Julia Hirschberg (eds.), Progress in Speech Synthesis. Springer-Verlag, pp. 159–175, 1996.
