1 / 14

Ahti Lohk | Kadri Vare | Heili Orav | Leo Võhandu

Experiences of ( Lexicographers and ) Computer Scientists in Validating Estonian Wordnet with Test Patterns. Ahti Lohk | Kadri Vare | Heili Orav | Leo Võhandu The 8th Meeting of The Global Wordnet Conference in BUCHAREST January 27-30, 2016. Motivation – why to validate ?.

tpatricia
Download Presentation

Ahti Lohk | Kadri Vare | Heili Orav | Leo Võhandu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experiences of (Lexicographers and)Computer Scientists in Validating Estonian Wordnet with Test Patterns Ahti Lohk | Kadri Vare | Heili Orav | Leo Võhandu The 8th Meeting of TheGlobal Wordnet Conferencein BUCHAREST January 27-30, 2016

  2. Motivation – whytovalidate? • Every expandable and developinghuman-machine system needs a feedback mechanism • The quality of wordnet has a strong impact on the quality of NLP tasks thatuseit • Multipleinheritancecases in thesemantichierarchiesof wordnet are pronetodifferentsemanticerrors

  3. Main aim • To prove that semantic hierarchies of wordnet-type dictionaries do contain yet undiscovered substructures which correspond to certain descriptions (test patterns) and … • the usage of these patterns to validate semantic hierarchies may improvewordnet structure significantly

  4. Previouswork • Cycles (Šmrz, 2004), (Kubis, 2012) • Shortcuts (Fischer, 1997) • Rings (Liu et al., 2004; Richens, 2008) • Dangling uplinks (Koeva et al., 2004; Šmrz, 2004) • Orphan nodes (null graphs) (Čapek, 2012)

  5. An artificial hierarchy

  6. An artificial hierarchy and specific substructures 6 4 1 2 5 3 Specific substructures = test patterns Short cut Heart-shaped substructure Ring 1 2 3 + 4 substructures Closed subset Dense component Connected roots 4 5 6

  7. Example 1: synset with many roots

  8. Example 2: dense component

  9. Example 3: „Compound“ pattern

  10. Example 4: connected roots Side view Top view

  11. Estonian Wordnet iterative evolution

  12. Statistics of thecorrectionoperations Overten versions of EstWN (during 4 years) 21,911 – removing the hypernymy and hyponymyrelations 5,344 – the lexical units in synsets were changed 4,122 – hypernymyand hyponymy relations were replaced by another semantic relation, mainly by nearsynonymy and fuzzynymy

  13. Wordnets in comparison

  14. Futureworks Applying test patterns on: • othersemanticrelations • other wordnets

More Related