| Literature DB >> 30571777 |
Wafaa Al-Saiagh1, Sabrina Tiun1, Ahmed Al-Saffar2, Suryanti Awang2, A S Al-Khaleefa3.
Abstract
Word sense disambiguation (WSD) is the process of identifying an appropriate sense for an ambiguous word. With the complexity of human languages in which a single word could yield different meanings, WSD has been utilized by several domains of interests such as search engines and machine translations. The literature shows a vast number of techniques used for the process of WSD. Recently, researchers have focused on the use of meta-heuristic approaches to identify the best solutions that reflect the best sense. However, the application of meta-heuristic approaches remains limited and thus requires the efficient exploration and exploitation of the problem space. Hence, the current study aims to propose a hybrid meta-heuristic method that consists of particle swarm optimization (PSO) and simulated annealing to find the global best meaning of a given text. Different semantic measures have been utilized in this model as objective functions for the proposed hybrid PSO. These measures consist of JCN and extended Lesk methods, which are combined effectively in this work. The proposed method is tested using a three-benchmark dataset (SemCor 3.0, SensEval-2, and SensEval-3). Results show that the proposed method has superior performance in comparison with state-of-the-art approaches.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30571777 PMCID: PMC6301655 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208695
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Proposed technique.
Fig 2PSO pseudocode.
Fig 3Pseudocode of SA algorithm.
Fig 4Pseudocode of hybrid PSO.
WSD evaluation criteria.
| Metric | Formula | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | It is the ratio of all answered senses to the total of the possible senses. | |
| Precision | It is the ratio of the correctly answered senses to the total of the answered senses. | |
| Recall | It is the ratio of the correctly answered senses to the total of the senses. | |
| F-measure | It is the harmonic average of precision and recall metrics. |
Empirical results of e-Lesk for three different window sizes.
| Noun | 100% | 66.93% | 66.93% | 66.93% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 45.72% | 34.41% | 39.26% | |
| Adjective | 100% | 73.29% | 73.29% | 73.29% | |
| Adverb | 100% | 63.14% | 63.14% | 63.14% | |
| All | 93.01% | 64.25% | 59.75% | 61.92% | |
| Noun | 100% | 67.69% | 67.69% | 67.69% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 46.91% | 35.30% | 40.28% | |
| Adjective | 100% | 73.39% | 73.39% | 73.39% | |
| Adverb | 100% | 63.88% | 63.88% | 63.88% | |
| All | 93.01% | 65.11% | 60.55% | 62.75% | |
| Noun | 100% | 70.20% | 70.20% | 70.20% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 48.52% | 36.50% | 41.66% | |
| Adjective | 100% | 73.68% | 73.68% | 73.68% | |
| Adverb | 100% | 64.41% | 64.41% | 64.41% | |
| All | 93.01% | 66.19% | 61.55% | 63.78% |
Empirical results of JCN measure for three different window sizes.
| Noun | 100% | 69.72% | 69.72% | 69.72% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 47.98% | 36.20% | 41.26% | |
| Noun | 100% | 72.63% | 72.63% | 72.63% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 50.28% | 37.84% | 43.19% | |
| Noun | 100% | 72.96% | 72.96% | 72.96% | |
| Verb | 75.26% | 50.81% | 38.24% | 43.63% |
Experimental results of the combined measure for an 11-word window size.
| POS | Coverage | Precision | Recall | F-measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | 73. 36% | 73. 36% | 73. 36% | |
| 75.26% | 51.16% | 38.50% | 43.93% | |
| 100% | 73.80% | 73.80% | 73.80% | |
| 100% | 64.76% | 64.76% | 64.76% | |
| 93.01% | 67.44% | 62.73% | 64.99% |
SA parameters.
| Parameter | Name | value |
|---|---|---|
| T | Temperature | 1 |
| N | Epoch length | 20 |
| α | Scheduling factor | 0.99 |
| stop | Stopping temperature | 1e-8 |
Fig 5Hybridization impact on the search process of various window sizes.
Comparison of results of hybrid PSO with the related works of three corpora using all POSs.
| Technique | Precision | Recall | F-measure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetic algorithm GA [ | 62.38 | 58.07 | 60.15 | |
| GA-Local search [ | 66.97 | 63.85 | 65.37 | |
| Harmony Search Algorithm (HAS) [ | 67.03 | 63.73 | 65.34 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem using Ant Colony Optimization (TSP-ACO) [ | 63.00 | 62.80 | 62.90 | |
| Harmony Search Algorithm (HAS) [ | 61.70 | 59.72 | 60.69 | |
| self-adaptive GA [ | 49.82 | 53.27 | 51.49 | |
| genetic algorithm GA [ | 52.13 | 53.79 | 52.95 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem using Ant Colony Optimization [ | 57.80 | 57.20 | 57.50 | |
| Self-adaptive GA [ | 43.95 | 48.59 | 46.15 | |
Fig 6Comparison of results of hybrid PSO and related work based on SemCor 3.0 nouns POSs.
Fig 7Comparison of results of hybrid PSO and related works based on SemCor 3.0 all POSs.
Fig 9Comparison of results of hybrid PSO and related works based on SensEval-3 all POSs corpus.
Fig 8Comparison of results of hybrid PSO and related works based on SensEval-2 POSs corpus.