24
Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation Ruben Izquierdo Marten Postma Piek Vossen Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Error analysis of Word Sense DisambiguationRuben IzquierdoMarten PostmaPiek Vossen

Izq

uie

rdo

, P

ost

ma

an

d V

oss

en

VU

Am

ste

rda

m

Page 2: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Motivation

Word Sense Disambiguation is still an unsolved problem

2 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 3: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Error Analysis

Perform error analysis on previous WSD evaluations to prove our hypothesis

Senseval-2: all-words task

Senseval-3: all-words task

Semeval2007: all-words task (#17)

Semeval2010: all-words on specific domain (#17)

Semeval2013: multilingual all-words WSD and entity linking (#12)

3 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 4: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Motivation

Some “propagated” errors

Errors on monosemous

Errors because pos-tags

Multiwords and phrasal verbs

Little attention has been paid to the real problem

WSD is not 1 problem but N problems

Our hypothesis

Context is not modeled properly in general

System rely too much on the most frequent sense

4 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 5: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Monosemous errors

5 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 6: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Monosemous errors

6 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Competition Monosemous Wrong Examples

Senseval2 499 (20.9%) 37.5% gene.n (suppressor_gene.n), chance.a(chance.n) next.r (next.a)

Senseval3 334 (16.6%) 44.1% Datum.n (data.n) making.n (make.v) out_of_sight (sight)

Semeval2007 25 (5.5%) 11.1% get_stuck.v, lack.v, write_about.v

Semeval2010 31 (2.2%) 97.9% Tidal_zone.n pine_marten.n roe_deer.ncordgrass.n

Semeval2013 (lemmas)

348 (21.1%) 1.9% Private_enterprise, developing_country, narrow_margin

Page 7: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Most Frequent Sense

7 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 8: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Most Frequent Sense

When the correct sense is NOT the most frequent sense

Systems still assign mostly the MFS

Senseval2

799 tokens are not MFS

84% systems still assign the MFS

Most “failed” words due to MFS bias

Senseval2, senseval3

Say.v find.v take.v have.v cell.n church.n

Semeval2010

Area.n nature.n connection.n water.n population.n

8 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 9: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Analysis per PoS-tag

9 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 10: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Analysis per polysemy class

10 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

2Senses

Poly. C.

6 15

Low Medium High

Page 11: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Analysis per frequency class

11 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 12: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Most difficult words

12 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 13: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Calculate per sentence

The “expected” difficulty

Average polysemy, sentence length, average word length

13 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 14: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Calculate per sentence

The “expected” difficulty

Average polysemy, sentence length, average word length

14 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Page 15: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Calculate per sentence

The “expected” difficulty

Average polysemy, sentence length, average wor length

The “observed” difficulty

From the real participant outputs, average error rate

We should expect:

harder sentences higher error rate

easier sentences lower error rate

15 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Page 16: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

16 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Page 17: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

17 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Page 18: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

• The context is not (probably) exploited properly • Expected “easy” sentences SHOULD show low error rates• Occurrences of the same word in different contexts have similar error

rate• The difficulty of a word depends more on its polysemy than on the

context where it appears18 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Expected vs. Observeddifficulties

Page 19: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

WSD Corpora

http://github.com/rubenIzquierdo/wsd_corpora

19 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 20: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

WSD Corpora

20 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 21: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

System Outputs

https://github.com/rubenIzquierdo/sval_systems

21 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 22: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

System Outputs

22 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam

Page 23: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Ruben Izquierdo

Marten Postma

Piek Vossen

[email protected]

http://github.com/rubenIzquierdo/wsd_corpora

http://github.com/rubenIzquierdo/sval_systems

23

Page 24: Error analysis of Word Sense Disambiguation

Analysis per PoS-tag

24 Izquierdo, Postma and Vossen VU Amsterdam