GRAS: An effective and efficient stemming algorithm for information retrieval

ACM Transactions on Information Systems

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Paik, Jiaul H ^a   Mitra, Mandar ^a   Parui, Swapan K ^a   Järvelin, Kalervo ^b  

^a INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE   (India)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Corpus; Stemming; Suffix

Indexed keywords

CORPUS; EVALUATION PLATFORMS; GRAPH-BASED; MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY; PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS; RETRIEVAL EFFECTIVENESS; RULE BASED; STEMMING; STEMMING ALGORITHMS; SUFFIX;

ALGORITHMS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY;

EID: 84555196913     PISSN: 10468188     EISSN: 15582868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/2037661.2037664     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. AMATI, G. AND VAN RIJSBERGEN, C. J. 2002. Probabilistic models of information retrieval based on measuring the divergence from randomness. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 20, 4, 357-389.
2. BACCHIN, M., FERRO, N., AND MELUCCI, M. 2005. A probabilistic model for stemmer generation. Inf. Process. Manage. 41, 1, 121-137.
3. DOLAMIC, L. AND SAVOY, J. 2009. Indexing and stemming approaches for the Czech language. Inf. Process. Manage. 45, 6, 714-720.
4. DOLAMIC, L. AND SAVOY, J. 2010. Comparative study of indexing and search strategies for the Hindi, Marathi, and Bengali languages. ACM Trans. Asian Lang. Inf. Process. 9, 3.
5. FRAKES, W. B. AND FOX, C. J. 2003. Strength and similarity of affix removal stemming algorithms. SIGIR Forum 37, 26-30.
6. GOLDSMITH, J. 2001. Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Comput. Linguist. 27, 2, 153-198.
7. HARMAN, D. 1991. How effective is suffixing. J. Amer. Soc. Infor. Sci. 42, 7-15.
8. HULL, D. A. 1996. Stemming algorithms-a case study for detailed evaluation. J. Amer. Soc. Infor. Sci. 47, 70-84. (Pubitemid 126582657)
9. KETTUNEN, K. 2009. Reductive and generative approaches to management of morphological variation of keywords in monolingual information retrieval: an overview. J. Document. 65, 2, 267-290.
10. KROVETZ, R. 1993. Viewing morphology as an inference process. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, 191-202.
11. MAJUMDER, P., MITRA, M., AND PAL, D. 2008. Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech stemming using YASS. In Proceedings of Advances in Multilingual and Multimodal Information Retrieval: 8th Workshop of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 49-56.
12. MAJUMDER, P., MITRA, M., PARUI, S. K., KOLE, G., MITRA, P., AND DATTA, K. 2007. YASS: Yet another suffix stripper. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 25, 4.
13. MCNAMEE, P. AND MAYFIELD, J. 2004. Character n-gram tokenization for european language text retrieval. Inf. Retr. 7, 1-2, 73-97. (Pubitemid 39046509)
14. OARD, D. W., LEVOW, G.-A., AND CABEZAS, C. I. 2001. Clef experiments at maryland: Statistical stemming and backoff translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop of Cross-Language Evaluation Forum on Cross- Language Information Retrieval and Evaluation (Revised Papers). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, U.K., 176-187. (Pubitemid 33334614)
15. PORTER, M. F. 1997. An Algorithm for Suffix Stripping. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 313-316.
16. SAVOY, J. 2008. Searching strategies for the Hungarian language. Inf. Process. Manage. 44, 1, 310-324. (Pubitemid 350007896)
17. XU, J. AND CROFT, W. B. 1998. Corpus-based stemming using cooccurrence of word variants. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 16, 1, 61-81. (Pubitemid 128656321)