File size: 88,896 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 | {
"paper_id": "P09-1002",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:53:52.538767Z"
},
"title": "Investigations on Word Senses and Word Usages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katrin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Texas at Austin",
"location": {}
},
"email": "katrin.erk@mail.utexas.edu"
},
{
"first": "Diana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccarthy",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Sussex",
"location": {}
},
"email": "dianam@sussex.ac.uk"
},
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gaylord",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Texas at Austin",
"location": {}
},
"email": "nlgaylord@mail.utexas.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "The vast majority of work on word senses has relied on predefined sense inventories and an annotation schema where each word instance is tagged with the best fitting sense. This paper examines the case for a graded notion of word meaning in two experiments, one which uses WordNet senses in a graded fashion, contrasted with the \"winner takes all\" annotation, and one which asks annotators to judge the similarity of two usages. We find that the graded responses correlate with annotations from previous datasets, but sense assignments are used in a way that weakens the case for clear cut sense boundaries. The responses from both experiments correlate with the overlap of paraphrases from the English lexical substitution task which bodes well for the use of substitutes as a proxy for word sense. This paper also provides two novel datasets which can be used for evaluating computational systems.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P09-1002",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "The vast majority of work on word senses has relied on predefined sense inventories and an annotation schema where each word instance is tagged with the best fitting sense. This paper examines the case for a graded notion of word meaning in two experiments, one which uses WordNet senses in a graded fashion, contrasted with the \"winner takes all\" annotation, and one which asks annotators to judge the similarity of two usages. We find that the graded responses correlate with annotations from previous datasets, but sense assignments are used in a way that weakens the case for clear cut sense boundaries. The responses from both experiments correlate with the overlap of paraphrases from the English lexical substitution task which bodes well for the use of substitutes as a proxy for word sense. This paper also provides two novel datasets which can be used for evaluating computational systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The vast majority of work on word sense tagging has assumed that predefined word senses from a dictionary are an adequate proxy for the task, although of course there are issues with this enterprise both in terms of cognitive validity (Hanks, 2000; Kilgarriff, 1997; Kilgarriff, 2006) and adequacy for computational linguistics applications (Kilgarriff, 2006) . Furthermore, given a predefined list of senses, annotation efforts and computational approaches to word sense disambiguation (WSD) have usually assumed that one best fitting sense should be selected for each usage. While there is usually some allowance made for multiple senses, this is typically not adopted by annotators or computational systems.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 235,
"end": 248,
"text": "(Hanks, 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 266,
"text": "Kilgarriff, 1997;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 284,
"text": "Kilgarriff, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 359,
"text": "(Kilgarriff, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Research on the psychology of concepts (Murphy, 2002; Hampton, 2007) shows that categories in the human mind are not simply sets with clearcut boundaries: Some items are perceived as more typical than others (Rosch, 1975; Rosch and Mervis, 1975) , and there are borderline cases on which people disagree more often, and on whose categorization they are more likely to change their minds (Hampton, 1979; McCloskey and Glucksberg, 1978) . Word meanings are certainly related to mental concepts (Murphy, 2002) . This raises the question of whether there is any such thing as the one appropriate sense for a given occurrence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 53,
"text": "(Murphy, 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"text": "Hampton, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 221,
"text": "(Rosch, 1975;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 245,
"text": "Rosch and Mervis, 1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 402,
"text": "(Hampton, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 434,
"text": "McCloskey and Glucksberg, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 506,
"text": "(Murphy, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we will explore using graded responses for sense tagging within a novel annotation paradigm. Modeling the annotation framework after psycholinguistic experiments, we do not train annotators to conform to sense distinctions; rather we assess individual differences by asking annotators to produce graded ratings instead of making a binary choice. We perform two annotation studies. In the first one, referred to as WSsim (Word Sense Similarity), annotators give graded ratings on the applicability of Word-Net senses. In the second one, Usim (Usage Similarity), annotators rate the similarity of pairs of occurrences (usages) of a common target word. Both studies explore whether users make use of a graded scale or persist in making binary decisions even when there is the option for a graded response. The first study additionally tests to what extent the judgments on WordNet senses fall into clear-cut clusters, while the second study allows us to explore meaning similarity independently of any lexicon resource.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Manual word sense assignment is difficult for human annotators (Krishnamurthy and Nicholls, 2000) . Reported inter-annotator agreement (ITA) for fine-grained word sense assignment tasks has ranged between 69% (Kilgarriff and Rosenzweig, 2000) for a lexical sample using the HECTOR dictionary and 78.6.% using WordNet (Landes et al., 1998) in all-words annotation. The use of more coarse-grained senses alleviates the problem: In OntoNotes (Hovy et al., 2006) , an ITA of 90% is used as the criterion for the construction of coarsegrained sense distinctions. However, intriguingly, for some high-frequency lemmas such as leave this ITA threshold is not reached even after multiple re-partitionings of the semantic space (Chen and Palmer, 2009) . Similarly, the performance of WSD systems clearly indicates that WSD is not easy unless one adopts a coarse-grained approach, and then systems tagging all words at best perform a few percentage points above the most frequent sense heuristic . Good performance on coarse-grained sense distinctions may be more useful in applications than poor performance on fine-grained distinctions (Ide and Wilks, 2006) but we do not know this yet and there is some evidence to the contrary (Stokoe, 2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 97,
"text": "(Krishnamurthy and Nicholls, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 242,
"text": "(Kilgarriff and Rosenzweig, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 338,
"text": "(Landes et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 458,
"text": "(Hovy et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 742,
"text": "(Chen and Palmer, 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1128,
"end": 1149,
"text": "(Ide and Wilks, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1235,
"text": "(Stokoe, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Rather than focus on the granularity of clusters, the approach we will take in this paper is to examine the phenomenon of word meaning both with and without recourse to predefined senses by focusing on the similarity of uses of a word. Human subjects show excellent agreement on judging word similarity out of context (Rubenstein and Goodenough, 1965; Miller and Charles, 1991) , and human judgments have previously been used successfully to study synonymy and nearsynonymy (Miller and Charles, 1991; Bybee and Eddington, 2006) . We focus on polysemy rather than synonymy. Our aim will be to use WSsim to determine to what extent annotations form cohesive clusters. In principle, it should be possible to use existing sense-annotated data to explore this question: almost all sense annotation efforts have allowed annotators to assign multiple senses to a single occurrence, and the distribution of these sense labels should indicate whether annotators viewed the senses as disjoint or not. However, the percentage of markables that received multiple sense labels in existing corpora is small, and it varies massively between corpora: In the SemCor corpus (Landes et al., 1998) , only 0.3% of all markables received multiple sense labels. In the SENSEVAL-3 English lexical task corpus (Mihalcea et al., 2004 ) (hereafter referred to as SE-3), the ratio is much higher at 8% of all markables 1 . This could mean annotators feel that there is usually a single applicable sense, or it could point to a bias towards single-sense assignment in the annotation guidelines and/or the annotation tool. The WSsim experiment that we report in this paper is designed to eliminate such bias as far as possible and we conduct it on data taken from SemCor and SE-3 so that we can compare the annotations. Although we use WordNet for the annotation, our study is not a study of WordNet per se. We choose WordNet because it is sufficiently fine-grained to examine subtle differences in usage, and because traditionally annotated datasets exist to which we can compare our results.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 318,
"end": 351,
"text": "(Rubenstein and Goodenough, 1965;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 377,
"text": "Miller and Charles, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 500,
"text": "(Miller and Charles, 1991;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 527,
"text": "Bybee and Eddington, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 1156,
"end": 1177,
"text": "(Landes et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1285,
"end": 1307,
"text": "(Mihalcea et al., 2004",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Predefined dictionaries and lexical resources are not the only possibilities for annotating lexical items with meaning. In cross-lingual settings, the actual translations of a word can be taken as the sense labels (Resnik and Yarowsky, 2000) . Recently, McCarthy and Navigli (2007) proposed the English Lexical Substitution task (hereafter referred to as LEXSUB) under the auspices of SemEval-2007. It uses paraphrases for words in context as a way of annotating meaning. The task was proposed following a background of discussions in the WSD community as to the adequacy of predefined word senses. The LEXSUB dataset comprises open class words (nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) with token instances of each word appearing in the context of one sentence taken from the English Internet Corpus (Sharoff, 2006) . The methodology can only work where there are paraphrases, so the dataset only contains words with more than one meaning where at least two different meanings have near synonyms. For meanings without obvious substitutes the annotators were allowed to use multiword paraphrases or words with slightly more general meanings. This dataset has been used to evaluate automatic systems which can find substitutes appropriate for the context. To the best of our knowledge there has been no study of how the data collected relates to word sense annotations or judgments of semantic similarity. In this paper we examine these relation-ships by re-using data from LEXSUB in both new annotation experiments and testing the results for correlation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 214,
"end": 241,
"text": "(Resnik and Yarowsky, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 281,
"text": "Recently, McCarthy and Navigli (2007)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 798,
"end": 813,
"text": "(Sharoff, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We conducted two experiments through an online annotation interface. Three annotators participated in each experiment; all were native British English speakers. The first experiment, WSsim, collected annotator judgments about the applicability of dictionary senses using a 5-point rating scale. The second, Usim, also utilized a 5-point scale but collected judgments on the similarity in meaning between two uses of a word. 2 The scale was 1 -completely different, 2 -mostly different, 3 -similar, 4 -very similar and 5 -identical. In Usim, this scale rated the similarity of the two uses of the common target word; in WSsim it rated the similarity between the use of the target word and the sense description. In both experiments, the annotation interface allowed annotators to revisit and change previously supplied judgments, and a comment box was provided alongside each item.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 424,
"end": 425,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "WSsim. This experiment contained a total of 430 sentences spanning 11 lemmas (nouns, verbs and adjectives). For 8 of these lemmas, 50 sentences were included, 25 of them randomly sampled from SemCor 3 and 25 randomly sampled from SE-3. 4 The remaining 3 lemmas in the experiment each had 10 sentences taken from the LEXSUB data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 236,
"end": 237,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "WSsim is a word sense annotation task using WordNet senses. 5 Unlike previous word sense annotation projects, we asked annotators to provide judgments on the applicability of every WordNet sense of the target lemma with the instruction: 6",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "2 Throughout this paper, a target word is assumed to be a word in a given PoS.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "3 The SemCor dataset was produced alongside WordNet, so it can be expected to support the WordNet sense distinctions. The same cannot be said for SE-3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "4 Sentence fragments and sentences with 5 or fewer words were excluded from the sampling. Annotators were given the sentences, but not the original annotation from these resources.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "5 WordNet 1.7.1 was used in the annotation of both SE-3 and SemCor; we used the more current WordNet 3.0 after verifying that the lemmas included in this experiment had the same senses listed in both versions. Care was taken additionally to ensure that senses were not presented in an order that reflected their frequency of occurrence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "6 The guidelines for both experiments are available at http://comp.ling.utexas.edu/ people/katrin erk/graded sense and usage annotation Your task is to rate, for each of these descriptions, how well they reflect the meaning of the boldfaced word in the sentence. Applicability judgments were not binary, but were instead collected using the five-point scale given above which allowed annotators to indicate not only whether a given sense applied, but to what degree. Each annotator annotated each of the 430 items. By having multiple annotators per item and a graded, non-binary annotation scheme we allow for and measure differences between annotators, rather than training annotators to conform to a common sense distinction guideline. By asking annotators to provide ratings for each individual sense, we strive to eliminate all bias towards either single-sense or multiple-sense assignment. In traditional word sense annotation, such bias could be introduced directly through annotation guidelines or indirectly, through tools that make it easier to assign fewer senses. We focus not on finding the best fitting sense but collect judgments on the applicability of all senses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Usim. This experiment used data from LEXSUB. For more information on LEXSUB, see McCarthy and Navigli (2007) . 34 lemmas (nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) were manually selected, including the 3 lemmas also used in WSsim. We selected lemmas which exhibited a range of meanings and substitutes in the LEXSUB data, with as few multiword substitutes as possible. Each lemma is the target in 10 LEXSUB sentences. For our experiment, we took every possible pairwise comparison of these 10 sentences for a lemma. We refer to each such pair of sentences as an SPAIR. The resulting dataset comprised 45 SPAIRs per lemma, adding up to 1530 comparisons per annotator overall.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 108,
"text": "McCarthy and Navigli (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In this annotation experiment, annotators saw SPAIRs with a common target word and rated the similarity in meaning between the two uses of the target word with the instruction: Your task is to rate, for each pair of sentences, how similar in meaning the two boldfaced words are on a five-point scale.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In addition annotators had the ability to respond with \"Cannot Decide\", indicating that they were unable to make an effective comparison between the two contexts, for example because the meaning of one usage was unclear. This occurred in 9 paired occurrences during the course of annotation, and these items (paired occurrences) were excluded from further analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The purpose of Usim was to collect judgments about degrees of similarity between a word's meaning in different contexts. Unlike WSsim, Usim does not rely upon any dictionary resource as a basis for the judgments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "This section reports on analyses on the annotated data. In all the analyses we use Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (\u03c1), a nonparametric test, because the data does not seem to be normally distributed. We used two-tailed tests in all cases, rather than assume the direction of the relationship. As noted above, we have three annotators per task, and each annotator gave judgments for every sentence (WSsim) or sentence pair (Usim). Since the annotators may vary as to how they use the ordinal scale, we do not use the mean of judgments 7 but report all individual correlations. All analyses were done using the R package. 8",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Analyses",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In the WSsim experiment, annotators rated the applicability of each WordNet 3.0 sense for a given target word occurrence. Table 1 shows a sample annotation for the target argument.n. 9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 129,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Pattern of annotation and annotator agreement. Figure 1 shows how often each of the five judgments on the scale was used, individually and summed over all annotators. (The y-axis shows raw counts of each judgment.) We can see from this figure that the extreme ratings 1 and 5 are used more often than the intermediate ones, but annotators make use of the full ordinal scale when judging the applicability of a sense. Also, the figure shows that annotator 1 used the extreme negative rating 1 much less than the other two annotators. Figure 2 shows the percentage of times each judgment was used on senses of three lemmas, different.a, interest.n, and win.v. In WordNet, they have 5, 7, and 4 senses, respectively. The pattern for win.v resembles the overall distribution of judgments, with peaks at the extreme ratings 1 and 5. The lemma interest.n has a single peak at rating 1, partly due to the fact that senses 5 (financial 7 We have also performed several of our calculations using the mean judgment, and they also gave highly significant results in all the cases we tested.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 928,
"end": 929,
"text": "7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 541,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "8 http://www.r-project.org/ 9 We use word.PoS to denote a target word (lemma). involvement) and 6 (interest group) were rarely judged to apply. For the lemma different.a, all judgments have been used with approximately the same frequency. We measured the level of agreement between annotators using Spearman's \u03c1 between the judgments of every pair of annotators. The pairwise correlations were \u03c1 = 0.506, \u03c1 = 0.466 and \u03c1 = 0.540, all highly significant with p < 2.2e-16.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Agreement with previous annotation in SemCor and SE-3. 200 of the items in WSsim had been previously annotated in SemCor, and 200 in SE-3. This lets us compare the annotation results across annotation efforts. Table 2 shows the percentage of items where more than one sense was assigned in the subset of WSsim from SemCor (first row), from SE-3 (second row), and Senses Sentence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annotator This question provoked arguments in America about the Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, some of the contents of which were said to have had little value as literature.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 217,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "1 4 4 2 1 1 3 Ann. 1 4 5 4 2 1 1 4 Ann. 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 Ann. 3 all of WSsim (third row). The Orig. column indicates how many items had multiple labels in the original annotation (SemCor or SE-3) 10 . Note that no item had more than one sense label in SemCor. The columns under WSsim judgment show the percentage of items (averaged over the three annotators) that had judgments at or above the specified threshold, starting from rating 3 -similar. Within WSsim, the percentage of multiple assignments in the three rows is fairly constant. WSsim avoids the bias to one sense by deliberately asking for judgments on the applicability of each sense rather than asking annotators to find the best one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "To compute the Spearman's correlation between the original sense labels and those given in the WSsim annotation, we converted SemCor and SE-3 labels to the format used within WSsim: Assigned senses were converted to a judgment of 5, and unassigned senses to a judgment of 1. For the WSsim/SemCor dataset, the correlation between original and WSsim annotation was \u03c1 = 0.234, \u03c1 = 0.448, and \u03c1 = 0.390 for the three annotators, each highly significant with p < 2.2e-16. For the WSsim/SE-3 dataset, the correlations were \u03c1 = 0.346, \u03c1 = 0.449 and \u03c1 = 0.338, each of them again highly significant at p < 2.2e-16. WSsim task could be explained by more coarsegrained, categorial sense assignments. We first test how many pairs of senses for a given lemma show similar patterns in the ratings that they receive. Table 3 shows the percentage of sense pairs that were significantly correlated for each annotator. 11 Significantly positively correlated senses can possibly be reduced to more coarse-grained senses. Would annotators have been able to designate a single appropriate sense given these more coarse-grained senses? Call two senses groupable if they are significantly positively correlated; in order not to overlook correlations that are relatively weak but existent, we use a cutoff of p = 0.05 for significant correlation. We tested how often annotators gave ratings of at least similar, i.e. ratings \u2265 3, to senses that were not groupable. Table 4 shows the percentages of items where at least two non-groupable senses received ratings at or above the specified threshold. The table shows that regardless of which annotator we look at, over 40% of all items had two or more non-groupable senses receive judgments of at least 3 (similar). There 1) We study the methods and concepts that each writer uses to defend the cogency of legal, deliberative, or more generally political prudence against explicit or implicit charges that practical thinking is merely a knack or form of cleverness.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 803,
"end": 810,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1449,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "2) Eleven CIRA members have been convicted of criminal charges and others are awaiting trial. were even several items where two or more nongroupable senses each got a judgment of 5. The sentence in table 1 is a case where several nongroupable senses got ratings \u2265 3. This is most pronounced for Annotator 2, who along with sense 2 (controversy) assigned senses 1 (statement), 7 (line of reasoning), and 3 (debate), none of which are groupable with sense 2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "WSsim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "In this experiment, ratings between 1 and 5 were given for every pairwise combination of sentences for each target lemma. An example of an SPAIR for charge.n is shown in figure 3. In this case the verdicts from the annotators were 2, 3 and 4.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Pattern of Annotations and Annotator Agreement Figure 4 gives a bar chart of the judgments for each annotator and summed over annotators.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We can see from this figure that the annotators use the full ordinal scale when judging the similarity of a word's usages, rather than sticking to the extremes. There is variation across words, depending on the relatedness of each word's usages. Figure 5 shows the judgments for the words bar.n, work.v and raw.a. We see that bar.n has predominantly different usages with a peak for category 1, work.v has more similar judgments (category 5) compared to any other category and raw.a has a peak in the middle category (3). 12 There are other words, like for example fresh.a, where the spread is more uniform.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 246,
"end": 254,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "To gauge the level of agreement between annotators, we calculated Spearman's \u03c1 between the judgments of every pair of annotators as in section 4.1. The pairwise correlations are all highly significant (p < 2.2e-16) with Spearman's \u03c1 = 0.502, 0.641 and 0.501 giving an average correlation of 0.548. We also perform leave-one-out resampling following Lapata (2006) which gave us a Spearman's correlation of 0.630.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 349,
"end": 362,
"text": "Lapata (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "12 For figure 5 we sum the judgments over annotators. Comparison with LEXSUB substitutions Next we look at whether the Usim judgments on sentence pairs (SPAIRs) correlate with LEXSUB substitutes. To do this we use the overlap of substitutes provided by the five LEXSUB annotators between two sentences in an SPAIR. In LEXSUB the annotators had to replace each item (a target word within the context of a sentence) with a substitute that fitted the context. Each annotator was permitted to supply up to three substitutes provided that they all fitted the context equally. There were 10 sentences per lemma. For our analyses we take every SPAIR for a given lemma and calculate the overlap (inter) of the substitutes provided by the annotators for the two usages under scrutiny. Let s 1 and s 2 be a pair of sentences in an SPAIR and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "x 1 and x 2 be the multisets of substitutes for the respective sentences. Let f req(w, x) be the frequency of a substitute w in a multiset x of substitutes for a given sentence. 13 INTER(s 1 , s 2 ) =",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2211 w\u2208x 1 \u2229x 2 min( f req(w, x 1 ), f req(w, x 2 )) max(|x 1 |, |x 2 |)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Using this calculation for each SPAIR we can now compute the correlation between the Usim judgments for each annotator and the INTER values, again using Spearman's. The figures are shown in the leftmost block of table 5. The average correlation for the 3 annotators was 0.488 and the p-values were all < 2.2e-16. This shows a highly significant correlation of the Usim judgments and the overlap of substitutes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We also compare the WSsim judgments against the LEXSUB substitutes, again using the INTER measure of substitute overlap. For this analysis, we only use those WSsim sentences that are originally from LEXSUB. In WSsim, the judgments for a sentence comprise judgments for each WordNet sense of that sentence. In order to compare against INTER, we need to transform these sentence-wise ratings in WSsim to a WSsim-based judgment of sentence similarity. To this end, we compute the Euclidean Distance 14 (ED) between two vectors J 1 and J 2 of judgments for two sentences s 1 , s 2 for the same lemma . Each of the n indexes of the vector represent one of the n different WordNet senses for . The value at entry i of the vector J 1 is the judgment that the annotator in question (we do not average over annotators here) provided for sense i of for sentence s 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "ED(J 1 , J 2 ) = ( n \u2211 i=1 (J 1 [i] \u2212 J 2 [i]) 2 )",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We correlate the Euclidean distances with INTER. We can only test correlation for the subset of WSsim that overlaps with the LEXSUB data: the 30 sentences for investigator.n, function.n and order.v, which together give 135 unique SPAIRs. We refer to this subset as W\u2229U. The results are given in the third block of whereas INTER is a measure of similarity, the correlation is negative. The results are highly significant with individual p-values from < 1.067e-10 to < 1.551e-08 and a mean correlation of -0.495. The results in the first and third block of table 5 are not directly comparable, as the results in the first block are for all Usim data and not the subset of LEXSUB with WSsim annotations. We therefore repeated the analysis for Usim on the subset of data in WSsim and provide the correlation in the middle section of table 5. The mean correlation for Usim on this subset of the data is 0.532, which is a stronger relationship compared to WSsim, although there is more discrepancy between individual annotators, with the result for annotator 4 giving a p-value = 9.139e-05 while the other two annotators had p-values < 2.2e-16. The LEXSUB substitute overlaps between different usages correlate well with both Usim and WSsim judgments, with a slightly stronger relationship to Usim, perhaps due to the more complicated representation of word meaning in WSsim which uses the full set of WordNet senses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Usim analysis",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "As we showed in section 4.1, WSsim correlates with previous word sense annotations in SemCor and SE-3 while allowing the user a more graded response to sense tagging. As we saw in section 4.2, Usim and WSsim judgments both have a highly significant correlation with similarity of usages as measured using the overlap of substitutes from LEXSUB. Here, we look at the correlation of WSsim and Usim, considering again the subset of data that is common to both experiments. We again transform WSsim sense judgments for individual sentences to distances between SPAIRs using Euclidean Distance (ED). The Spearman's \u03c1 range between \u22120.307 and \u22120.671, and all results are highly significant with p-values between 0.0003 and < 2.2e-16. As above, the correlation is negative because ED is a distance measure between sentences in an SPAIR, whereas the judg-ments for Usim are similarity judgments. We see that there is highly significant correlation for every pairing of annotators from the two experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Correlation between WSsim and Usim",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Validity of annotation scheme. Annotator ratings show highly significant correlation on both tasks. This shows that the tasks are well-defined. In addition, there is a strong correlation between WSsim and Usim, which indicates that the potential bias introduced by the use of dictionary senses in WSsim is not too prominent. However, we note that WSsim only contained a small portion of 3 lemmas (30 sentences and 135 SPAIRs) in common with Usim, so more annotation is needed to be certain of this relationship. Given the differences between annotator 1 and the other annotators in Fig. 1 , it would be interesting to collect judgments for additional annotators.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 582,
"end": 588,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Graded judgments of use similarity and sense applicability. The annotators made use of the full spectrum of ratings, as shown in Figures 1 and 4 . This may be because of a graded perception of the similarity of uses as well as senses, or because some uses and senses are very similar. Table 4 shows that for a large number of WSsim items, multiple senses that were not significantly positively correlated got high ratings. This seems to indicate that the ratings we obtained cannot simply be explained by more coarse-grained senses. It may hence be reasonable to pursue computational models of word meaning that are graded, maybe even models that do not rely on dictionary senses at all (Erk and Pado, 2008) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 688,
"end": 708,
"text": "(Erk and Pado, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 145,
"text": "Figures 1 and 4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 293,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Comparison to previous word sense annotation. Our graded WSsim annotations do correlate with traditional \"best fitting sense\" annotations from SemCor and SE-3; however, if annotators perceive similarity between uses and senses as graded, traditional word sense annotation runs the risk of introducing bias into the annotation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Comparison to lexical substitutions. There is a strong correlation between both Usim and WSsim and the overlap in paraphrases that annotators generated for LEXSUB. This is very encouraging, and especially interesting because LEXSUB annotators freely generated paraphrases rather than selecting them from a list.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We have introduced a novel annotation paradigm for word sense annotation that allows for graded judgments and for some variation between annotators. We have used this annotation paradigm in two experiments, WSsim and Usim, that shed some light on the question of whether differences between word usages are perceived as categorial or graded. Both datasets will be made publicly available. There was a high correlation between annotator judgments within and across tasks, as well as with previous word sense annotation and with paraphrases proposed in the English Lexical Substitution task. Annotators made ample use of graded judgments in a way that cannot be explained through more coarse-grained senses. These results suggest that it may make sense to evaluate WSD systems on a task of graded rather than categorial meaning characterization, either through dictionary senses or similarity between uses. In that case, it would be useful to have more extensive datasets with graded annotation, even though this annotation paradigm is more time consuming and thus more expensive than traditional word sense annotation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "As a next step, we will automatically cluster the judgments we obtained in the WSsim and Usim experiments to further explore the degree to which the annotation gives rise to sense grouping. We will also use the ratings in both experiments to evaluate automatically induced models of word meaning. The SemEval-2007 word sense induction task (Agirre and Soroa, 2007) already allows for evaluation of automatic sense induction systems, but compares output to gold-standard senses from OntoNotes. We hope that the Usim dataset will be particularly useful for evaluating methods which relate usages without necessarily producing hard clusters. Also, we will extend the current dataset using more annotators and exploring additional lexicon resources.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 340,
"end": 364,
"text": "(Agirre and Soroa, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "This is even though both annotation efforts use balanced corpora, the Brown corpus in the case of SemCor, the British National Corpus for SE-3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Overall, 0.3% of tokens in SemCor have multiple labels, and 8% of tokens in SE-3, so the multiple label assignment in our sample is not an underestimate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We exclude senses that received a uniform rating of 1 on all items. This concerned 4 senses for annotator 2 and 6 for annotator 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The frequency of a substitute in a multiset depends on the number of LEXSUB annotators that picked the substitute for this item.14 We use Euclidean Distance rather than a normalizing measure like Cosine because a sentence where all ratings are 5 should be very different from a sentence where all senses received a rating of 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "Acknowledgments. We acknowledge support from the UK Royal Society for a Dorothy Hodkin Fellowship to the second author. We thank Sebastian Pado for many helpful discussions, and Andrew Young for help with the interface.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "acknowledgement",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "SemEval-2007 task 2: Evaluating word sense induction and discrimination systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Agirre",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Soroa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "7--12",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Agirre and A. Soroa. 2007. SemEval-2007 task 2: Evaluating word sense induction and dis- crimination systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pages 7-12, Prague, Czech Repub- lic.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of 'becoming'",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bybee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eddington",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Language",
"volume": "82",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "323--355",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Bybee and D. Eddington. 2006. A usage-based ap- proach to Spanish verbs of 'becoming'. Language, 82(2):323-355.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Improving English verb sense disambiguation performance with linguistically motivated features and clear sense distinction boundaries",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Chen and M. Palmer. 2009. Improving English verb sense disambiguation performance with lin- guistically motivated features and clear sense dis- tinction boundaries. Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation, Special Issue on SemEval-2007. in press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "A structured vector space model for word meaning in context",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pado",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP-08",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Erk and S. Pado. 2008. A structured vector space model for word meaning in context. In Proceedings of EMNLP-08, Waikiki, Hawaii.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hampton",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "441--461",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. A. Hampton. 1979. Polymorphous concepts in se- mantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18:441-461.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hampton",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "",
"pages": "355--384",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. A. Hampton. 2007. Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31:355-384.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Do word meanings exist?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hanks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Computers and the Humanities",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "1-2",
"pages": "205--215",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Hanks. 2000. Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities, 34(1-2):205-215(11).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "OntoNotes: The 90% solution",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pradhan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramshaw",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weischedel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL (NAACL-2006)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "57--60",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. H. Hovy, M. Marcus, M. Palmer, S. Pradhan, L. Ramshaw, and R. Weischedel. 2006. OntoNotes: The 90% solution. In Proceedings of the Hu- man Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL (NAACL-2006), pages 57-60, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Making sense about sense",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ide",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wilks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Algorithms and Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--73",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Ide and Y. Wilks. 2006. Making sense about sense. In E. Agirre and P. Edmonds, editors, Word Sense Disambiguation, Algorithms and Appli- cations, pages 47-73. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Framework and results for English Senseval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kilgarriff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rosenzweig",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Computers and the Humanities",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "1-2",
"pages": "15--48",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Kilgarriff and J. Rosenzweig. 2000. Framework and results for English Senseval. Computers and the Humanities, 34(1-2):15-48.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "1997. I don't believe in word senses",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kilgarriff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Computers and the Humanities",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "91--113",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Kilgarriff. 1997. I don't believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2):91-113.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Word senses",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kilgarriff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Word Sense Disambiguation, Algorithms and Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "29--46",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Kilgarriff. 2006. Word senses. In E. Agirre and P. Edmonds, editors, Word Sense Disambigua- tion, Algorithms and Applications, pages 29-46. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Peeling an onion: the lexicographers' experience of manual sense-tagging",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krishnamurthy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nicholls",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Computers and the Humanities",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--2",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Krishnamurthy and D. Nicholls. 2000. Peeling an onion: the lexicographers' experience of man- ual sense-tagging. Computers and the Humanities, 34(1-2).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Landes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leacock",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tengi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Landes, C. Leacock, and R. Tengi. 1998. Build- ing semantic concordances. In C. Fellbaum, editor, WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Automatic evaluation of information ordering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "32",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "471--484",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Lapata. 2006. Automatic evaluation of information ordering. Computational Linguistics, 32(4):471- 484.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "SemEval-2007 task 10: English lexical substitution task",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccarthy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Navigli",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "48--53",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. McCarthy and R. Navigli. 2007. SemEval-2007 task 10: English lexical substitution task. In Pro- ceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Se- mantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pages 48-53, Prague, Czech Republic.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccloskey",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Glucksberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Memory & Cognition",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "462--472",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. McCloskey and S. Glucksberg. 1978. Natural cat- egories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6:462-472.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "The Senseval-3 English lexical sample task",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mihalcea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chklovski",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kilgarriff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "3rd International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SensEval-3) at ACL-2004",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Mihalcea, T. Chklovski, and A. Kilgarriff. 2004. The Senseval-3 English lexical sample task. In 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Evalua- tions (SensEval-3) at ACL-2004, Barcelona, Spain.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and cognitive processes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charles",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--28",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G. Miller and W. Charles. 1991. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and cognitive pro- cesses, 6(1):1-28.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "The Big Book of Concepts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Murphy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G. L. Murphy. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "SemEval-2007 task 7: Coarse-grained English all-words task",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Navigli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Litkowski",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "O",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hargraves",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "30--35",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Navigli, K. C. Litkowski, and O. Hargraves. 2007. SemEval-2007 task 7: Coarse-grained En- glish all-words task. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pages 30-35, Prague, Czech Re- public.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: New evaluation methods for word sense disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Resnik",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yarowsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "113--133",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Resnik and D. Yarowsky. 2000. Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: New evaluation methods for word sense disambiguation. Natural Language Engineering, 5(3):113-133.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rosch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Mervis",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "Cognitive Psychology",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "",
"pages": "573--605",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Rosch and C. B. Mervis. 1975. Family resem- blance: Studies in the internal structure of cate- gories. Cognitive Psychology, 7:573-605.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Cognitive representations of semantic categories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rosch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General",
"volume": "104",
"issue": "",
"pages": "192--233",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Rosch. 1975. Cognitive representations of seman- tic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104:192-233.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Contextual correlates of synonymy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rubenstein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodenough",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1965,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "",
"pages": "627--633",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Rubenstein and J. Goodenough. 1965. Contextual correlates of synonymy. Computational Linguistics, 8:627-633.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Open-source corpora: Using the net to fish for linguistic data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sharoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "International Journal of Corpus Linguistics",
"volume": "11",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "435--462",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Sharoff. 2006. Open-source corpora: Using the net to fish for linguistic data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(4):435-462.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Differentiating homonymy and polysemy in information retrieval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stokoe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP-05",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "403--410",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Stokoe. 2005. Differentiating homonymy and pol- ysemy in information retrieval. In Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP-05, pages 403-410, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"text": "WSsim experiment: number of times each judgment was used, by annotator and summed over all annotators. The y-axis shows raw counts of each judgment. WSsim experiment: percentage of times each judgment was used for the lemmas different.a, interest.n and win.v. Judgment counts were summed over all three annotators.",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"text": "An SPAIR for charge.n. Annotator judgments: 2,3,4",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"text": "Usim experiment: number of times each judgment was used for bar.n, work.v and raw.a",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF0": {
"text": "A sample annotation in the WSsim experiment. The senses are: 1:statement, 2:controversy, 3:debate, 4:literary argument, 5:parameter, 6:variable, 7:line of reasoning",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">WSsim judgment</td></tr><tr><td>Data</td><td>Orig.</td><td>\u2265 3</td><td>\u2265 4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>WSsim/SemCor</td><td>0.0</td><td colspan=\"3\">80.2 57.5 28.3</td></tr><tr><td>WSsim/SE-3</td><td>24.0</td><td colspan=\"3\">78.0 58.3 27.1</td></tr><tr><td>All WSsim</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">78.8 57.4 27.7</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF1": {
"text": "",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>: Percentage of items with multiple senses</td></tr><tr><td>assigned. Orig: in the original SemCor/SE-3 data.</td></tr><tr><td>WSsim judgment: items with judgments at or</td></tr><tr><td>above the specified threshold. The percentages for</td></tr><tr><td>WSsim are averaged over the three annotators.</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF2": {
"text": "Degree of sense grouping. Next we test to what extent the sense applicability judgments in the",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">p < 0.05</td><td colspan=\"2\">p < 0.01</td></tr><tr><td/><td>pos</td><td>neg</td><td>pos</td><td>neg</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 1</td><td colspan=\"3\">30.8 11.4 23.2</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 2</td><td colspan=\"4\">22.2 24.1 19.6 19.6</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 3</td><td colspan=\"3\">12.7 12.0 10.0</td><td>6.0</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF3": {
"text": "",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">: Percentage of sense pairs that were sig-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">nificantly positively (pos) or negatively (neg) cor-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">related at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, shown by anno-</td></tr><tr><td>tator.</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">j \u2265 3 j \u2265 4 j = 5</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 1</td><td>71.9</td><td>49.1</td><td>8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 2</td><td>55.3</td><td>24.7</td><td>8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Ann. 3</td><td>42.8</td><td>24.0</td><td>4.9</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF4": {
"text": "Percentage of sentences in which at least two uncorrelated (p > 0.05) or negatively correlated senses have been annotated with judgments at the specified threshold.",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF5": {
"text": "Note that since we are measuring distance between SPAIRs for WSsim",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Usim All</td><td colspan=\"3\">Usim W\u2229U WSsim W\u2229U</td></tr><tr><td>ann.</td><td>\u03c1</td><td>\u03c1</td><td>ann.</td><td>\u03c1</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>0.383</td><td>0.330</td><td>1</td><td>-0.520</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0.498</td><td>0.635</td><td>2</td><td>-0.503</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0.584</td><td>0.631</td><td>3</td><td>-0.463</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF6": {
"text": "Annotator correlation with LEXSUB substitute overlap (inter)",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table"
}
}
}
} |