From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Disambiguation" redirects here. For other uses, see .
For disambiguation on Wikipedia, see .
In , word-sense disambiguation (WSD) is an
and . WSD is identifying which
(i.e. ) is used in a , when the word . The solution to this problem impacts other computer-related writing, such as , improving relevance of , , ,
et cetera.
is quite proficient at word-sense disambiguation. The fact that
is formed in a way that requires so much of it is a reflection of that neurologic reality. In other words, human language developed in a way that reflects (and also has helped to shape) the innate ability provided by the brain's . In
that it enables, it has been a long-term challenge to develop the ability in computers to do
Research has progressed steadily to a point where WSD systems achieve sufficiently high levels of
on a variety of word types and ambiguities. A rich variety of techniques have been researched, from dictionary-based methods that use the knowledge encoded in lexical resources, to supervised
methods in which a
is trained for each distinct word on a corpus of manually sense-annotated examples, to completely unsupervised methods that cluster occurrences of words, thereby inducing word senses. Among these, supervised learning approaches have been the most successful
Current accuracy is difficult to state without a host of caveats. In English, accuracy at the coarse-grained () level is routinely above 90%, with some methods on particular homographs achieving over 96%. On finer-grained sense distinctions, top accuracies from 59.1% to 69.0% have been reported in recent evaluation exercises (SemEval-2007, Senseval-2), where the baseline accuracy of the simplest possible algorithm of always choosing the most frequent sense was 51.4% and 57%, respectively.
requires two strict inputs: a
to specify the senses which are to be disambiguated and a
data to be disambiguated (in some methods, a
of language examples is also required). WSD task has two variants: "" and "" task. The former comprises disambiguating the occurrences of a small sample of target words which were previously selected, while in the latter all the words in a piece of running text need to be disambiguated. The latter is deemed a more realistic form of evaluation, but the corpus is more expensive to produce because human annotators have to read the definitions for each word in the sequence every time they need to make a tagging judgement, rather than once for a block of instances for the same target word.
To give a hint how all this works, consider two examples of the distinct senses that exist for the (written) word "":
a type of fish
tones of low frequency
and the sentences:
I went fishing for some sea bass.
The bass line of the song is too weak.
To a human, it is obvious that the first sentence is using the word "", as in the former sense above and in the second sentence, the word "" is being used as in the latter sense below. Developing
to replicate this human ability can often be a difficult task, as is further exemplified by the implicit equivocation between "" and "bass (musical instrument)".
WSD was first formulated into as a distinct computational task during the early days of machine translation in the 1940s, making it one of the oldest problems in computational linguistics. , in his famous 1949 memorandum on translation, first introduced the problem in a computational context. Early researchers understood the significance and difficulty of WSD well. In fact,
(1960) used the above example to argue that WSD could not be solved by "electronic computer" because of the need in general to model all world knowledge.
In the 1970s, WSD was a subtask of semantic interpretation systems developed within the field of artificial intelligence, starting with ' preference semantics. However, since WSD systems were at the time largely rule-based and hand-coded they were prone to a knowledge acquisition bottleneck.
By the 1980s large-scale lexical resources, such as the
(OALD), became available: hand-coding was replaced with knowledge automatically extracted from these resources, but disambiguation was still knowledge-based or dictionary-based.
In the 1990s, the statistical revolution swept through computational linguistics, and WSD became a paradigm problem on which to apply supervised machine learning techniques.
The 2000s saw supervised techniques reach a plateau in accuracy, and so attention has shifted to coarser-grained senses, domain adaptation, semi-supervised and unsupervised corpus-based systems, combinations of different methods, and the return of knowledge-based systems via graph-based methods. Still, supervised systems continue to perform best.
One problem with word sense disambiguation is deciding what the senses are. In cases like the word bass above, at least some senses are obviously different. In other cases, however, the different senses can be closely related (one meaning being a
extension of another), and in such cases division of words into senses becomes much more difficult. Different
will provide different divisions of words into senses. One solution some researchers have used is to choose a particular dictionary, and just use its set of senses. Generally, however, research results using broad distinctions in senses have been much better than those using narrow ones. However, given the lack of a full-fledged coarse-grained sense inventory, most researchers continue to work on
Most research in the field of WSD is performed by using
as a reference sense inventory for English. WordNet is a computational
that encodes concepts as
sets (e.g. the concept of car is encoded as { car, auto, automobile, machine, motorcar }). Other resources used for disambiguation purposes include
and . More recently, , a multilingual encyclopedic dictionary, has been used for multilingual WSD.
In any real test,
and sense tagging are very closely related with each potentially making constraints to the other. And the question whether these tasks should be kept together or decoupled is still not unanimously resolved, but recently scientists incline to test these things separately (e.g. in the Senseval/ competitions parts of speech are provided as input for the text to disambiguate).
It is instructive to compare the word sense disambiguation problem with the problem of part-of-speech tagging. Both involve disambiguating or tagging with words, be it with senses or parts of speech. However, algorithms used for one do not tend to work well for the other, mainly because the part of speech of a word is primarily determined by the immediately adjacent one to three words, whereas the sense of a word may be determined by words further away. The success rate for part-of-speech tagging algorithms is at present much higher than that for WSD, state-of-the art being around 95%[] accuracy or better, as compared to less than 75%[] accuracy in word sense disambiguation with . These figures are typical for English, and may be very different from those for other languages.
Another problem is
. WSD systems are normally tested by having their results on a task compared against those of a human. However, while it is relatively easy to assign parts of speech to text, training people to tag senses is far more difficult. While users can memorize all of the possible parts of speech a word can take, it is often impossible for individuals to memorize all of the senses a word can take. Moreover, humans do not agree on the task at hand – give a list of senses and sentences, and humans will not always agree on which word belongs in which sense.
Thus, a computer cannot be expected to give better performance on such a task than a human (indeed, since the human serves as the standard, the computer being better than the human is incoherent),[] so the human performance serves as an . Human performance, however, is much better on
distinctions, so this again is why research on coarse-grained distinctions has been put to test in recent WSD evaluation exercises.
researchers like
argue that one cannot parse meanings from words without some form of . For example, comparing these two sentences:
"Jill and Mary are mothers." – (each is independently a mother).
"Jill and Mary are sisters." – (they are sisters of each other).
To properly identify senses of words one must know common sense facts. Moreover, sometimes the common sense is needed to disambiguate such words like pronouns in case of having
in the text.
A task-independent sense inventory is not a coherent concept: each task requires its own division of word meaning into senses relevant to the task. For example, the ambiguity of '' (animal or device) is not relevant in English-French , but is relevant in . The opposite is true of 'river', which requires a choice in French ( 'flows into the sea', or
'flows into a river').
Also, completely different algorithms might be required by different applications. In machine translation, the problem takes the form of target word selection. Here, the "senses" are words in the target language, which often correspond to significant meaning distinctions in the source language ("bank" could translate to the French "banque"—that is, 'financial bank' or "rive"—that is, 'edge of river'). In information retrieval, a sense inventory is not necessarily required, because it is enough to know that a word is used in the same sense in the query and
what sense that is, is unimportant.
Finally, the very notion of "" is slippery and controversial. Most people can agree in distinctions at the
level (e.g., pen as writing instrument or enclosure), but go down one level to
, and disagreements arise. For example, in Senseval-2, which used fine-grained sense distinctions, human annotators agreed in only 85% of word occurrences. Word meaning is in principle infinitely variable and context sensitive. It does not divide up easily into distinct or discrete sub-meanings.
frequently discover in corpora loose and overlapping word meanings, and standard or conventional meanings extended, modulated, and exploited in a bewildering variety of ways. The art of lexicography is to generalize from the corpus to definitions that evoke and explain the full range of meaning of a word, making it seem like words are well-behaved semantically. However, it is not at all clear if these same meaning distinctions are applicable in , as the decisions of lexicographers are usually driven by other considerations. Recently, a task – named
– has been proposed as a possible solution to the sense discreteness problem. The task consists of providing a substitute for a word in context that preserves the meaning of the original word (potentially, substitutes can be chosen from the full lexicon of the target language, thus overcoming discreteness).
As in all , there are two main approaches to WSD –
Deep approaches presume access to a comprehensive body of . Knowledge, such as "you can go fishing for a type of fish, but not for low frequency sounds" and "songs have low frequency sounds as parts, but not types of fish", is then used to determine in which sense the word bass is used. These approaches are not very successful in practice, mainly because such a body of knowledge does not exist in a computer-readable format, outside very limited domains. However, if such knowledge did exist, then deep approaches would be much more accurate than the shallow approaches.[] Also, there is a long tradition in , of trying such approaches in terms of coded knowledge and in some cases, it is hard to say clearly whether the knowledge involved is linguistic or world knowledge. The first attempt was that by
and her colleagues, at the
in England, in the 1950s. This attempt used as data a punched-card version of Roget's Thesaurus and its numbered "heads", as an indicator of topics and looked for repetitions in text, using a set intersection algorithm. It was not very successful, but had strong relationships to later work, especially Yarowsky's machine learning optimisation of a thesaurus method in the 1990s.
Shallow approaches don't try to understand the text. They just consider the surrounding words, using information such as "if bass has words sea or fishing nearby, it probably
if bass has the words music or song nearby, it is probably in the music sense." These rules can be automatically derived by the computer, using a training corpus of words tagged with their word senses. This approach, while theoretically not as powerful as deep approaches, gives superior results in practice, due to the computer's limited world knowledge. However, it can be confused by sentences like The dogs bark at the tree which contains the word bark near both tree and dogs.
There are four conventional approaches to WSD:
- and : These rely primarily on dictionaries, thesauri, and lexical knowledge bases, without using any corpus evidence.
: These make use of a secondary source of knowledge such as a small annotated corpus as seed data in a bootstrapping process, or a word-aligned bilingual corpus.
: These make use of sense-annotated corpora to train from.
: These eschew (almost) completely external information and work directly from raw unannotated corpora. These methods are also known under the name of .
Almost all these approaches normally work by defining a window of n content words around each word to be disambiguated in the corpus, and statistically analyzing those n surrounding words. Two shallow approaches used to train and then disambiguate are
and . In recent research,
have shown superior performance in . Graph-based approaches have also gained much attention from the research community, and currently achieve performance close to the state of the art.
is the seminal dictionary-based method. It is based on the hypothesis that words used together in text are related to each other and that the relation can be observed in the definitions of the words and their senses. Two (or more) words are disambiguated by finding the pair of dictionary senses with the greatest word overlap in their dictionary definitions. For example, when disambiguating the words in "pine cone", the definitions of the appropriate senses both include the words evergreen and tree (at least in one dictionary).
An alternative to the use of the definitions is to consider general word-sense
and to compute the
of each pair of word senses based on a given lexical knowledge base such as .
methods reminiscent of
research of the early days of AI research have been applied with some success. More complex graph-based approaches have been shown to perform almost as well as supervised methods or even outperforming them on specific domains. Recently, it has been reported that simple , such as , perform state-of-the-art WSD in the presence of a sufficiently rich lexical knowledge base. Also, automatically transferring
in the form of
from Wikipedia to WordNet has been shown to boost simple knowledge-based methods, enabling them to rival the best supervised systems and even outperform them in a domain-specific setting.
The use of selectional preferences (or ) is also useful, for example, knowing that one typically cooks food, one can disambiguate the word bass in "I am cooking basses" (i.e., it's not a musical instrument).
methods are based on the assumption that the context can provide enough evidence on its own to disambiguate words (hence,
are deemed unnecessary). Probably every machine learning algorithm going has been applied to WSD, including associated techniques such as , , and .
have been shown to be the most successful approaches, to date, probably because they can cope with the high-dimensionality of the feature space. However, these supervised methods are subject to a new knowledge acquisition bottleneck since they rely on substantial amounts of manually sense-tagged corpora for training, which are laborious and expensive to create.
Because of the lack of training data, many word sense disambiguation algorithms use , which allows both labeled and unlabeled data. The
was an early example of such an algorithm. It uses the ‘One sense per collocation’ and the ‘One sense per discourse’ properties of human languages for word sense disambiguation. From observation, words tend to exhibit only one sense in most given discourse and in a given collocation.
approach starts from a small amount of
for each word: either manually tagged training examples or a small number of surefire decision rules (e.g., 'play' in the context of 'bass' almost always indicates the musical instrument). The seeds are used to train an initial , using any supervised method. This classifier is then used on the untagged portion of the corpus to extract a larger training set, in which only the most confident classifications are included. The process repeats, each new classifier being trained on a successively larger training corpus, until the whole corpus is consumed, or until a given maximum number of iterations is reached.
Other semi-supervised techniques use large quantities of untagged corpora to provide
information that supplements the tagged corpora. These techniques have the potential to help in the adaptation of supervised models to different domains.
Also, an ambiguous word in one language is often translated into different words in a second language depending on the sense of the word. Word-aligned
corpora have been used to infer cross-lingual sense distinctions, a kind of semi-supervised system.
Main article:
is the greatest challenge for WSD researchers. The underlying assumption is that similar senses occur in similar contexts, and thus senses can be induced from text by
word occurrences using some measure of similarity of context, a task referred to as
or discrimination. Then, new occurrences of the word can be classified into the closest induced clusters/senses. Performance has been lower than other methods, above, but comparisons are difficult since senses induced must be mapped to a known dictionary of word senses. If a
to a set of dictionary senses is not desired,
(including measures of entropy and purity) can be performed. Alternatively, word sense induction methods can be tested and compared within an application. For instance, it has been shown that word sense induction improves Web search result clustering by increasing the quality of result clusters and the degree diversification of result lists. It is hoped that unsupervised learning will overcome the
because they are not dependent on manual effort.
Other approaches may vary differently in their methods:
Disambiguation based on operational semantics of .
Identification of
WSD using Cross-Lingual Evidence.
The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the WSD problem.
rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases.
depend crucially on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the
exercises.
Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest
ever accessible, the , to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as
(IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true:
implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. Therefore, the lack of training data provoked appearing some new algorithms and techniques described here:
Main article:
Knowledge is a fundamental component of WSD. Knowledge sources provide data which are essential to associate senses with words. They can vary from corpora of texts, either unlabeled or annotated with word senses, to machine-readable dictionaries, thesauri, glossaries, ontologies, etc. They can be classified as follows:
Structured:
Unstructured:
Other resources (such as , , , etc.)
: raw corpora and sense-annotated corpora
Comparing and evaluating different WSD systems is extremely difficult, because of the different test sets, sense inventories, and knowledge resources adopted. Before the organization of specific evaluation campaigns most systems were assessed on in-house, often small-scale, . In order to test one's algorithm, developers should spend their time to annotate all word occurrences. And comparing methods even on the same corpus is not eligible if there is different sense inventories.
In order to define common evaluation datasets and procedures, public evaluation campaigns have been organized.
(now renamed ) is an international word sense disambiguation competition, held every three years since 1998:
(2004), and its successor,
(2007). The objective of the competition is to organize different lectures, preparing and hand-annotating corpus for testing systems, perform a comparative evaluation of WSD systems in several kinds of tasks, including all-words and lexical sample WSD for different languages, and, more recently, new tasks such as , , , etc. The systems submitted for evaluation to these competitions usually integrate different techniques and often combine supervised and knowledge-based methods (especially for avoiding bad performance in lack of training examples).
In recent years , the WSD evaluation task choices had grown and the criterion for evaluating WSD has changed drastically depending on the variant of the WSD evaluation task. Below enumerates the variety of WSD tasks:
As technology evolves, the Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) tasks grows in different flavors towards various research directions and for more languages:
evaluation tasks uses WordNet as its sense inventory and is largely based on / classification with the manually sense annotated corpora:
Classic English WSD uses the
as it sense inventory and the primary classification input is normally based on the
Classical WSD for other languages uses their respective WordNet as sense inventories and sense annotated corpora tagged in their respective languages. Often researchers will also tapped on the SemCor corpus and aligned bitexts with English as its
evaluation task is also focused on WSD across 2 or more languages simultaneously. Unlike the Multilingual WSD tasks, instead of providing manually sense-annotated examples for each sense of a polysemous noun, the sense inventory is built up on the basis of parallel corpora, e.g. Europarl corpus.
evaluation tasks focused on WSD across 2 or more languages simultaneously, using their respective WordNets as its sense inventories or
as multilingual sense inventory. It evolved from the Translation WSD evaluation tasks that took place in Senseval-2. A popular approach is to carry out monolingual WSD and then map the source language senses into the corresponding target word translations.
is a combined task evaluation where the sense inventory is first
from a fixed
data, consisting of polysemous words and the sentence that they occurred in, then WSD is performed on a different .
, a unified state-of-the-art system for multilingual Word Sense Disambiguation and Entity Linking
, a Java API for knowledge-based multilingual Word Sense Disambiguation in 6 different languages using the BabelNet semantic network.
, a project that includes free, open source systems for word sense disambiguation and lexical sample sense disambiguation.
, a collection of programs for performing graph-based Word Sense Disambiguation and lexical similarity/relatedness using a pre-existing .
, python implementations of Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) technologies.
A. Moro, A. Raganato, R. Navigli. . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 2, pp. 231-244, 2014.
Galitsky, Boris Disambiguation via default rules under answering complex questions
v14 N1-2 pp 157-175 (2003)
Lucia Specia, Maria das Gracas Volpe Nunes, Gabriela Castelo Branco Ribeiro, and Mark Stevenson. . In EACL-2006 Workshop on Making Sense of Sense: Bringing Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics Together, pages 33–40, Trento, Italy, April 2006.
Els Lefever and Veronique Hoste. . Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Evaluations: Recent Achievements and Future Directions. June 04-04, 2009, Boulder, Colorado
R. Navigli, D. A. Jurgens, D. Vannella. . Proc. of 7th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval), in the Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2013), Atlanta, USA, June 14-15th, 2013, pp. 222-231.
Lucia Specia, Maria das Gracas Volpe Nunes, Gabriela Castelo Branco Ribeiro, and Mark Stevenson. . In EACL-2006 Workshop on Making Sense of Sense: Bringing Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics Together, pages 33–40, Trento, Italy, April 2006
Eneko Agirre and Aitor Soroa. . Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations, p.7-12, June 23–24, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic
Agirre, E.; Lopez de Lacalle, A.; Soroa, A. (2009).
(PDF). Proc. of IJCAI.
Agirre, E.; M. Stevenson. 2006. Knowledge sources for WSD. In Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, E. Agirre and P. Edmonds, Eds. Springer, New York, NY.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964). Language and information. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Buitelaar, P.; B. Magnini, C. Strapparava and P. Vossen. 2006. Domain-specific WSD. In Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, E. Agirre and P. Edmonds, Eds. Springer, New York, NY.
Chan, Y. S.; H. T. Ng. 2005. Scaling up word sense disambiguation via parallel texts. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI, Pittsburgh, PA).
Edmonds, P. 2000. . Tech. note. University of Brighton, Brighton. U.K.
(1997). "Analysis of a handwriting task". Proc. of ANLP-97 Workshop on Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? Washington D.C., USA.
Gliozzo, A.; B. Magnini and C. Strapparava. 2004. . In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP, Barcelona, Spain).
Ide, N.; T. Erjavec, D. Tufis. 2002. . In Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Word Sense Disambiguation: Recent Successes and Future Directions (Philadelphia, PA).
Kilgarriff, A. 1997. . Comput. Human. 31(2), pp. 91–113.
Kilgarriff, A.; G. Grefenstette. 2003. . Computational Linguistics 29(3), pp. 333–347
Kilgarriff, A Joseph Rosenzweig, English Senseval: Report and Results May–June, 2000, University of Brighton
Lapata, M.; and F. Keller. 2007. . In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL, Rochester, NY).
Lenat, D. . (GoogleTachTalks on YouTube)
Lenat, D.; R. V. Guha. 1989. Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems, Addison-Wesley
L M. 1986. . In Proc. of SIGDOC-86: 5th International Conference on Systems Documentation, Toronto, Canada.
Litkowski, K. C. 2005. Computational lexicons and dictionaries. In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), K. R. Brown, Ed. Elsevier Publishers, Oxford, U.K.
Magnini, B; G. Cavaglià. 2000. Integrating subject field codes into WordNet. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC, Athens, Greece).
McCarthy, D.; R. Koeling, J. Weeds, J. Carroll. 2007. . Computational Linguistics 33(4): 553–590.
McCarthy, D.; R. Navigli. 2009. , Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(2), Springer.
Mihalcea, R. 2007. . In Proc. of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2007), Rochester, April 2007.
Mohammad, S; G. Hirst. 2006. . In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL, Trento, Italy).
Navigli, R. 2006. . Proc. of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics joint with the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 2006), Sydney, Australia.
Navigli, R.; A. Di Marco. . Computational Linguistics, 39(3), MIT Press, 2013, pp. 709–754.
Navigli, R.; G. Crisafulli. . Proc. of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2010), MIT Stata Center, Massachusetts, USA.
Navigli, R.; M. Lapata. . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), 32(4), IEEE Press, 2010.
Navigli, R.; K. Litkowski, O. Hargraves. 2007. . Proc. of Semeval-2007 Workshop (), in the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2007), Prague, Czech Republic.
Navigli, R.;P. Velardi. 2005. . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), 27(7).
Palmer, M.; O. Babko-Malaya and H. T. Dang. 2004. . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding Systems in HLT/NAACL (Boston, MA).
Ponzetto, S. P.; R. Navigli. . In Proc. of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2010.
Pradhan, S.; E. Loper, D. Dligach, M. Palmer. 2007. . Proc. of Semeval-2007 Workshop (SEMEVAL), in the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2007), Prague, Czech Republic.
Schütze, H. 1998. . Computational Linguistics, 24(1): 97–123.
Snow, R.; S. Prakash, D. Jurafsky, A. Y. Ng. 2007. , Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL).
Snyder, B.; M. Palmer. 2004. . In Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text (Senseval-3), Barcelona, Spain.
Weaver, Warren (1949).
(PDF). In Locke, W.N.; Booth, A.D. Machine Translation of Languages: Fourteen Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilks, Y.; B. Slator, L. Guthrie. 1996. Electric Words: dictionaries, computers and meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yarowsky, D. . In Proc. of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics (COLING), 1992.
Yarowsky, D. 1995. . In Proc. of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The de facto standard benchmarks for WSD systems.
Roberto Navigli. , ACM Computing Surveys, 41(2), 2009, pp. 1–69. An up-to-date state of the art of the field.
as defined in Scholarpedia
(PDF) A comprehensive overview By Prof. Nancy Ide & Jean Véronis (1998).
, by Rada Mihalcea and Ted Pedersen (2005).
, by Craig Trim (2013).
Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, edited by Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds (2006), Springer. Covers the entire field with chapters contributed by leading researchers.
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1964. Language and Information. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Edmonds, Philip & Adam Kilgarriff. 2002. Introduction to the special issue on evaluating word sense disambiguation systems. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 8(4):279-291.
Edmonds, Philip. 2005. Lexical disambiguation. The Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Ed., ed. by Keith Brown, 607-23. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ide, Nancy & Jean Véronis. 1998.
Computational Linguistics, 24(1):1-40.
Jurafsky, Daniel & James H. Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Litkowski, K. C. 2005. Computational lexicons and dictionaries. In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), K. R. Brown, Ed. Elsevier Publishers, Oxford, U.K., 753–761.
Manning, Christopher D. & Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mihalcea, Rada. 2007. Word sense disambiguation. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning. Springer-Verlag.
Resnik, Philip and David Yarowsky. 2000. Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: New evaluation methods for word sense disambiguation, Natural Language Engineering, 5(2):113-133.
Yarowsky, David. 2001. Word sense disambiguation. Handbook of Natural Language Processing, ed. by Dale et al., 629-654. New York: Marcel Dekker.
— Uses shallow word sense disambiguation to prevent false positives
: Hidden categories: