A Modification of the Leacock-Chodorow Measure of the Semantic Relatedness of Concepts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.351.06Keywords:
text mining, WordNet network, semantic relatedness, Lecock-Chodorov measureAbstract
The measures of the semantic relatedness of concepts can be categorised into two types: knowledge‑based methods and corpus‑based methods. Knowledge‑based techniques make use of man‑created dictionaries, thesauruses and other artefacts as a source of knowledge. Corpus‑based techniques assess the semantic similarity of two concepts making use of large corpora of text documents. Some researchers claim that knowledge‑based measures outperform corpus‑based ones, but it is much more important to observe that the latter ones are heavily corpus dependent. In this article, we propose to modify the best WordNet‑based method of assessing semantic relatedness, i.e. the Leacock‑Chodorow measure. This measure has proven to be the best in several studies and has a very simple formula. We asses our proposal on the basis of two popular benchmark sets of pairs of concepts, i.e. the Ruben‑Goodenough set of 65 pairs of concepts and the Fickelstein set of 353 pairs of terms. The results prove that our proposal outperforms the traditional Leacock‑Chodorow measure.
Downloads
References
Bird S., Loper E., Klein E. (2009), Natural Language Processing with Python, O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol.
Google Scholar
Budanitsky A., Hirst G. (2006), Evaluating WordNet‑based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness, “Computational Linguistics”, vol. 32, issue 1, pp. 13–47.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.1.13
Fellbaum Ch. (ed.) (1998), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001
Hirst G., St‑Onge D. (1998), Lexical chains as representations of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms, [in:] Ch. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 305–332.
Google Scholar
Jiang J., Conrath D. (1997), Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy, Proceedings of International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, Taiwan, pp. 19–33.
Google Scholar
Leacock C., Chodorow M. (1998), Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification, [in:] Ch. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 265–283.
Google Scholar
Lin D. (1998), Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING–ACL ’98), Montreal, pp. 296–304.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/980691.980696
McInnes B., Pedersen T., Liu Y., Melton G., Pakhomov S. (2014), U‑path: An undirected path‑based measure of semantic similarity, Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association, Washington, pp. 882–891.
Google Scholar
Resnick P. (1995), Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity, Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, pp. 448–453.
Google Scholar
Wu Z., Palmer M. (1994), Verbs semantics and lexical selection, Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL ’94, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp. 133–138.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981751
Zugang C., Jia S., Yaping Y. (2018), An Approach to Measuring Semantic Relatedness of Geographic Terminologies Using a Thesaurus and Lexical Database Sources, “International Journal of Geo‑Information”, vol. 7(3), pp. 98–12.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7030098
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
