Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Bias in Machine Learning

Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 1996

Volumn , Issue , 1996, Pages 82-91

  Mooney, Raymond J ^a  

^a University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION TREES; MACHINE LEARNING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

'CURRENT; CASE BASED; CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUE; COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENTS; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON; MACHINE-LEARNING; RULE BASED; SPECIFIC PROBLEMS; STATISTICAL NEURAL NETWORKS; WORD SENSE;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 85016663484     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (59)

1. Aha, D. W. (1992). Generalizingfrom case studies: A case study. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1-10 Aberdeen, Scotland.
2. Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M. K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 6(1), 37-66.
3. Anoe, C., ~ Bennett, S. W. (1995). Evaluating automated and manual acquisition of anaphora resolution strategies. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 122-129 Cambridge, MA.
4. Atlas, L., Cole, R., Conner, J., E1-Sharkawi, M., Marks, R., Muthusamy, Y., & Bernard, E. (1990). Performance comparisons between backpropagation networks and classification trees on three real-world applications. In Touretzky, D. S. (Ed.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
5. Baffes, P., ~ Mooney, R. (1993). Symbolic revision of theories with M-of-N rules. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1135-1140 Chambery, France.
6. Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., & Warmuth, M. (1987). Occam's razor. Information Processing Letters, 24, 377-380.
7. Brill, E. (1993). Automatic grammar induction and parsing free text: A transformation-based approach. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 259-265 Columbus, Ohio.
8. Brown, P., Della-Pietra, S., Della-Pietra, V., & Mercer, R. (1991). Word sense disambiguation using statistical methods. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 264-270.
9. Charniak, E. (1993). Statistical Language Learning. MIT Press.
10. Church, K. (1988). A stochastic parts program and noun phrase parser for unrestricted text. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics.
11. Clark, P., & Niblett, T. (1989). The CN2 induction algorithm. Machine Learning, 3, 261-284.
12. Cover, T. M., & Hart, P. E. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13, 21-27.
13. Dietterich, T. G., Hild, H., & Bakiri, G. (1990). A comparative study of ID3 and backpropagation for English text-to-speech mapping. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 24-31 Austin, TX.
14. Duda, R. O., & Hart, P. E. (1973). Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. Wiley, New York.
15. Fisher, D. H., & McKusick, K. B. (1989). An empirical comparison of ID3 and backpropagation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 788-793 Detroit, MI.
16. Friedman, J., Bentley, J., & Finkel, R. (1977). An algorithm for finding best matches in logarithmic expected time. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 3(3), 209-226.
17. Gale, W., Church, K., & Yarowsky, D. (1992a). A method for disambiguating word senses in a large corpus. Computers and the Humanities, 26, 415-439.
18. Gale, W., Church, K. W., & Yarowsky, D. (1992b). Estimating upper and lower bounds on the performance of word-sense disambiguation programs. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 249-256 Newark, Delaware.
19. Gordon, D. F., & desJardins, M. (1995). Evaluation and selection of biases in machine learning. Machine Learning, 20(1/2), 5-22.
20. Hindle, D., & Rooth, M. (1993). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 103-120.
21. Holte, R. C. (1993). Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used datasets. Machine Learning, 11(1), 63-90.
22. Hume, D. (1748). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding Reprinted 1955. Liberal Arts Press, New York.
23. Kulikowski, C. A., & Weiss, S. M. (1991). Computer Systems That Learn - Classification and Prediction Methods from Statistics, Neural Nets, Machine Learning, and Expert Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
24. Langley, P. (1996). Elements of Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
25. Leacock, C., Towell, G., & Voorhees, E. (1993a). Corpus-based statistical sense resolution. In Proceedings of the ARPA Workshop on Human Language Technology.
26. Leacock, C., Towell, G., & Voorhees, E. (1993b). Towards building contextual representations of word senses using statistical models. In Proceedings of the SIGLEX Workshop: Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge from Text, pp. 10-20. Association for Computational Linguistics.
27. Lehman, J. F. (1994). Toward the essential nature ofsatistical knowledge in sense resolution. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 734-741 Seattle, WA.
28. Ling, C. X. (1994). Learning the past tense of English verbs: The symbolic pattern associator vs. connectionist models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 209-229.
29. Ling, C. X., & Marinov, M. (1993). Answering the connectionist challenge: A symbolic model of learning the past tense of English verbs. Cognition, 49(3), 235-290.
30. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313-330.
31. Merz, C., Murphy, P. M., & Aha, D. W. (1996). Repository of machine learning databases http://w~, ics.uci.edu/'mlearn/mlrepos itory,html. Department of Information and Computer Science,UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,CA.
32. Michalski, R. S. (1983). A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G., & Mitchell, T. M. (Eds.), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, pp. 83-134. Tioga.
33. Miller, G. (1991). WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4).
34. Mitchell, T. (1980). The need for biases in learning generalizations. Tech. rep. CBM-TR-117, Rutgers University. Reprinted in Readings in Machine Learning, J. W. Shavlik and T. G. Dietterich (eds.), Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA, 1990.
35. Mooney, R. J. (1995). Encouraging experimental results on learning CNF. Machine Learning, I9(1), 79-92.
36. Mooney, R. J., & Califf, M. E. (1995). Induction of first-order decision lists: Results on learning the past tense of English verbs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 3, 1-24.
37. Mooney, R. J., Shavlik, J. W., Towell, G., & Gove, A. (1989). An experimental comparison of symbolic and connectionist learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 775-780 Detroit, MI. Reprinted in Readings in Machine Learning, J. W. Shavlik and T. G. Dietterich (eds.), Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA, 1990.
38. Murphy, P. M., & Pazzani, M. J. (1991). ID2-of-3: Constructive induction of M-of-N concepts for discriminators in decision trees. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, pp. 183-187 Evanston, IL.
39. Pagallo, G., & Haussler, D. (1990). Boolean feature discovery in empirical learning. Machine Learning, 5, 71-100.
40. Periera, F., & Shabes, Y. (1992). Inside-outside reestimation from partially bracketed corpora. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 128-135 Newark, Delaware.
41. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo,CA.
42. Quinlan, J. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3), 239-266.
43. Rao, R. B., Gordon, D., & Spears, W. (1995). For every generalization action is there really an equal an opposite reaction? Analysis of the conservation law for generalization performance. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 471-479 San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufman.
44. Reilly, R. G., & Sharkey, N. E. (Eds.). (1992). Connectionist Approaches to Natural Language Processing. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hilldale, NJ.
45. Rivest, R. L.. (1987). Learning decision lists. Machine Learning, 2(3), 229-246.
46. Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of Neurodynamies. Spartan, New York.
47. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, J. R. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. I, pp. 318-362. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 18(11), 613-620.
49. Schaffer, C. (1993). Selecting a classification method by cross-validation. Machine Learning, 13(1), 135-143.
50. Schaffer, C. (1994). A conservation law for generalization performance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 259-265 San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufman.
51. Shavlik, J. W., & Dietterich, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Readings in Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo,CA.
52. Shavlik, J. W., Mooney, R. J., g~ Towell, G. G. (1991). Symbolic and neural learning algorithms: An experimental comparison. Machine Learning, 6, 111-143. Reprinted in Readings in Knowledge Acquisition and Learning, B. G. Buchanan and D. C. Wilkins (eds.), Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA, 1993.
53. Towell, G. G., Shavlik, J. W., & Noordewier, M. O. (1990). Refinement of approximate domain theories by knowledge-based artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 861-866 Boston, MA.
54. Voorhees, E., Leacock, C., & Towell, G. (1995). Learning context to disambiguate word senses. In Petsche, T., Hanson, S., & Shavlik, J. (Eds.), Computational Learning Theory and Natural Learning Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 279-305. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
55. Weiss, S. M., & Kapouleas, I. (1989). An empirical comparison of pattern recognition, neural nets, and machine learning classification methods. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 781-787 Detroit, MI.
56. Wermter, S., Riloff, E., & Scheler, G. (Eds.). (1996). Symbolic, Connectionist, and Statistical Approaches to Learning for Natural Language Processing. Springer Verlag, Berlin. in press.
57. Wolpert, D. H. (1992). On the connection between in-sample testing and generalization error. Complex Systems, 6, 47-94.
58. Yarowsky, D. (1994). Decision lists for lexical ambiguity resolution: Application to accent restoration in Spanish and French. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 88-95 Las Cruces, NM.
59. Zelle, J. M., & Mooney, R. J. (1994). Inducing deterministic Prolog parsers from treebanks: A machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 748-753 Seattle, WA.