Representing word meaning in context via lexical substitutes

References

• Geeraerts D. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Miller GA. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM. 1995;38(11):39–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae JP, Rademaker A, Rudnicka E, et al. English WordNet 2020: improving and extending a WordNet for english using an open-source methodology. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2020 Workshop on Multimodal Wordnets (MMW2020); Marseille, France; 2020. p. 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson G. What are the goals of distributional semantics? 2020. In press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris ZS. Distributional structure. Word. 1954;10(2–3):146–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg Y. Neural network methods for natural language processing. Synth Lect Hum Lang Technol. 2017;10(1):1–309.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, et al. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Preprint, 2018. arXiv:181004805.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy D, Navigli R. The English lexical substitution task. Lang Resour Eval. 2009;43(2):139–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou W, Ge T, Xu K, et al. BERT-based lexical substitution. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Florence, Italy; 2019. p. 3368–3373.
   Google Scholar
• Arefyev N, Sheludko B, Podolskiy A, et al. A comparative study of lexical substitution approaches based on neural language models. Preprint, 2020. arXiv:200600031.
   Google Scholar
• Melamud O, McClosky D, Patwardhan S, et al. The role of context types and dimensionality in learning word embeddings. Preprint, 2016. arXiv:160100893.
   Google Scholar
• Amrami A, Goldberg Y. Towards better substitution-based word sense induction. Preprint, 2019. arXiv:190512598.
   Google Scholar
• Navigli R. A quick tour of word sense disambiguation, induction and related approaches. In: International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science. Springer; 2012. p. 115–129.
   Google Scholar
• Schütze H. Automatic word sense discrimination. Comput Linguist. 1998;24(1):97–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovy E, Marcus M, Palmer M, et al. OntoNotes: the 90% solution. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers; New York City, USA; 2006. p. 57–60.
   Google Scholar
• Szarvas G, Biemann C, Gurevych I, et al. Supervised all-words lexical substitution using delexicalized features. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL; Atlanta, Georgia; 2013. p. 1131–1141.
   Google Scholar
• Hintz G, Biemann C. Delexicalized supervised german lexical substitution. In: Proceedings of the GermEval GSCL Workshop; Essen, Germany; 2015. p. 11–16.
   Google Scholar
• Melamud O, Levy O, Dagan I. A simple word embedding model for lexical substitution. In: Proceedings of the NAACL VSM-NLP Workshop; Denver, Colorado; 2015. p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Roller S, Erk K. PIC a different word: a simple model for lexical substitution in context. In: Proceedings of NAACL; San Diego, VA; 2016. p. 1121–1126.
   Google Scholar
• Kremer G, Erk K, Padó S, et al. What substitutes tell us – analysis of an “all-words” lexical substitution corpus. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Gothenburg, Sweden; 2014. p. 540–549.
   Google Scholar
• Biemann C. Turk bootstrap word sense inventory 2.0: a large-scale resource for lexical substitution. In: LREC; Istanbul, Turkey; 2012. p. 4038–4042.
   Google Scholar
• Buljan M, Padó S, Šnajder J. Lexical substitution for evaluating compositional distributional models. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers); New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; 2018. p. 206–211.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy D, Apidianaki M, Erk K. Word sense clustering and clusterability. Comput Linguist. 2016;42(2):245–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkontzelos I, Manandhar S. UoY: graphs of unambiguous vertices for word sense induction and disambiguation. In: Proceedings of SemEval; Uppsala, Sweden; 2010. p. 355–358.
   Google Scholar
• Hope D, Keller B. UoS: a graph-based system for graded word sense induction. In: Proceedings of SemEval; Atlanta, Georgia; 2013. p. 689–694.
   Google Scholar
• Navigli R, Crisafulli G. Inducing word senses to improve web search result clustering. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; 2010. p. 116–126.
   Google Scholar
• Bartunov S, Kondrashkin D, Osokin A, et al. Breaking sticks and ambiguities with adaptive skip-gram. Preprint, 2015. p. 47–54. arXiv:150207257.
   Google Scholar
• Komninos A, Manandhar S. Structured generative models of continuous features for word sense induction. In: Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers; Osaka, Japan; 2016. p. 3577–3587.
   Google Scholar
• Başkaya O, Sert E, Cirik V, et al. AI-KU: using substitute vectors and co-occurrence modeling for word sense induction and disambiguation. In: Proceedings of SemEval; Atlanta, Georgia; 2013. p. 300–306.
   Google Scholar
• Alagić D, Šnajder J, Padó S. Leveraging lexical substitutes for unsupervised word sense induction. In: Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence; Louisiana, New Orleans, USA; 2018. p. 5004–5011
   Google Scholar
• Manandhar S, Klapaftis I, Dligach D, et al. SemEval-2010 task 14: word sense induction & disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation; Uppsala, Sweden; 2010. p. 63–68.
   Google Scholar
• Jurgens D, Klapaftis I. SemEval-2013 task 13: word sense induction for graded and non-graded senses. In: Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013); Atlanta, Georgia, USA; 2013. p. 290–299.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kishida K. Property of average precision and its generalization: an examination of evaluation indicator for information retrieval experiments. National Institute of Informatics Tokyo, Japan; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Amrami A, Goldberg Y. Word sense induction with neural BiLM and symmetric patterns. Preprint, 2018. arXiv:180808518.
   Google Scholar
• Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; Long Beach, California, USA; 2017. p. 5998–6008.
   Google Scholar
• Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–2830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg A, Hirschberg J. V-measure: a conditional entropy-based external cluster evaluation measure. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL); Prague, Czech Republic; 2007. p. 410–420.
   Google Scholar
• Artiles J, Amigó E, Gonzalo J. The role of named entities in web people search. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; Singapore; 2009. p. 534–542.
   Google Scholar
• van Rijsbergen C. Information retrieval. Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1979.
   Google Scholar