Abstract

We present a detailed theoretical and computational analysis of the Watset meta-algorithm for fuzzy graph clustering, which has been found to be widely applicable in a variety of domains. This algorithm creates an intermediate representation of the input graph, which reflects the “ambiguity” of its nodes. Then, it uses hard clustering to discover clusters in this “disambiguated” intermediate graph. After outlining the approach and analyzing its computational complexity, we demonstrate that Watset shows competitive results in three applications: unsupervised synset induction from a synonymy graph, unsupervised semantic frame induction from dependency triples, and unsupervised semantic class induction from a distributional thesaurus. Our algorithm is generic and can also be applied to other networks of linguistic data.

1. Introduction

Language can be conceived as a system of interrelated symbols, such as words, senses, part-of-speeches, letters, and so forth. Ambiguity is a fundamental inherent property of language. Namely, each symbol can refer to several meanings, mapping the space of objects to the space of communicative signs (de Saussure, 1916). For language processing applications, these symbols need to be represented in a computational format. The structure discovery paradigm (Biemann, 2012) aims at inducing a system of linguistic symbols and relationships between them in an unsupervised way to enable processing of a wide variety of languages. Clustering algorithms are central and ubiquitous tools for such kinds of unsupervised structure discovery processes applied to natural language data. In this article, we present a new clustering algorithm,1 which is especially suitable for processing graphs of linguistic data, because it performs disambiguation of symbols in the local context in order to subsequently globally cluster those disambiguated symbols.

At the heart of our method lies the pre-processing of a graph on the basis of local pre-clustering. Breaking nodes that connect to several communities (i.e., hubs) into several local senses helps to better reach the goal of clustering, no matter which clustering algorithm is used. This results in a sparser sense-aware graphical representation of the input data. Such a representation allows the use of efficient hard clustering algorithms for performing fuzzy clustering.

The contributions presented in this article include:

  1. A meta-algorithm for graph clustering, called Watset, performing a fuzzy clustering of the input graph using hard clustering methods in two subsequent steps (Section 3).

  2. A method for synset induction based on the Watset algorithm applied to synonymy graphs weighted by word embeddings (Section 4).

  3. A method for semantic frame induction based on the Watset algorithm applied as a triclustering algorithm to syntactic triples (Section 5).

  4. A method for semantic class induction based on the Watset algorithm applied to a distributional thesaurus (Section 6).

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the related work. Section 3 presents the Watset algorithm in a more general fashion than previously introduced in Ustalov, Panchenko, and Biemann (2017), including an analysis of its computational complexity and run-time. We also describe a simplified version of Watset that does not use the context similarity measure for propagating links in the original graph to the appropriate senses in the disambiguated graph. Three subsequent sections present different applications of the algorithm. Section 4 applies Watset for unsupervised synset induction, referencing results by Ustalov, Panchenko, and Biemann. Section 5 shows frame induction with Watset on the basis of a triclustering approach, as previously described by Ustalov et al. (2018). Section 6 presents new experiments on semantic class induction with Watset. Section 7 concludes with the final remarks and pointers for future work.

Table 1 shows several examples of linguistic structures on which we conduct experiments described in this article. With the exception of the type of input graph and the hyper-parameters of the Watset algorithm, the overall pipeline remains similar in every described application. For instance, in Section 4 the input of the clustering algorithm is a graph of ambiguous synonyms and the output is an induced linguistic structure that represents synsets. Thus, by varying the input graphs we show how using the same methodology on various types of linguistic structures can be induced in an unsupervised manner. This opens avenues for extraction of various meaningful structures from linguistic graphs in natural language processing (NLP) and other fields using the method presented in this article.

Table 1 
Various types of input linguistic graphs clustered by the Watset algorithm and the corresponding induced output symbolic linguistic structures.
Input NodesInput EdgesOutput Linguistic StructureSee
Polysemous words Synonymy relationships Synsets composed of disambiguated words § 4 
 
Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) triples Most distributionally similar SVO triples Lexical semantic frames § 5 
 
Polysemous words Most distributionally similar words Semantic classes composed of disambiguated words § 6 
Input NodesInput EdgesOutput Linguistic StructureSee
Polysemous words Synonymy relationships Synsets composed of disambiguated words § 4 
 
Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) triples Most distributionally similar SVO triples Lexical semantic frames § 5 
 
Polysemous words Most distributionally similar words Semantic classes composed of disambiguated words § 6 

2. Related Work

We present surveys on graph clustering (Section 2.1), word sense induction (Section 2.2), lexical semantic frame induction (Section 2.3), and semantic class induction (Section 2.4), giving detailed explanations of algorithms used in our experiments and discussing related work on these topics.

2.1 Graph Clustering

Graph clustering is a process of finding groups of strongly related vertices in a graph, which is a field of research in its own right with a large number of proposed approaches; see Schaeffer (2007) for a survey. Graph clustering methods are strongly related to the methods for finding communities in networks (Newman and Girvan, 2004; Fortunato, 2010). In our work, we focus mostly on the algorithms, which have proven to be useful for processing of networks of linguistic data, such as word co-occurrence graphs, especially those that were used for induction of linguistic structures such as word senses.

Markov Clustering (MCL; van Dongen, 2000) is a hard clustering algorithm, that is, a method that partitions nodes of the graph in a set of disjoint clusters. This method is based on simulation of stochastic flow in graphs. MCL simulates random walks within a graph by the alternation of two operators, called expansion and inflation, which recompute the class labels. Notably, it has been successfully used for the word sense induction task (Dorow and Widdows, 2003).

Chinese Whispers (CW; Biemann, 2006, 2012) is a hard clustering algorithm for weighted graphs, which can be considered as a special case of MCL with a simplified class update step. At each iteration, the labels of all the nodes are updated according to the majority of labels among the neighboring nodes. The algorithm has a hyper-parameter that controls graph weights, which can be set to three values: (1) CWtop sums over the neighborhood’s classes; (2) CWlin downgrades the influence of a neighboring node by its degree; or (3) CWlog by the logarithm of its degree.

MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013a) is a fuzzy clustering algorithm particularly designed for the word sense induction task. In a nutshell, pairs of nodes are grouped if they have a maximal mutual affinity. The algorithm starts by converting the undirected input graph into a directed graph by keeping the maximal affinity nodes of each node. Next, all nodes are marked as root nodes. Finally, for each root node, the following procedure is repeated: All transitive children of this root form a cluster and the roots are marked as non-root nodes; a root node together with all its transitive children form a fuzzy cluster.

Clique Percolation Method (CPM) by Palla et al. (2005) is a fuzzy clustering algorithm, that is, a method that partitions nodes of a graph in a set of potentially overlapping clusters. The method is designed for unweighted graphs and builds up clusters from k-cliques corresponding to fully connected sub-graphs of k nodes. Although this method is only commonly used in social network analysis for clique detection, we decided to add it to the comparison, as synsets are essentially cliques of synonyms.

The Louvain method (Blondel et al., 2008) is a hard graph clustering method developed for identification of communities in large networks. The algorithm finds hierarchies of clusters in a recursive fashion. It is based on a greedy method that optimizes modularity of a partition of the network. First, it looks for small communities by optimizing modularity locally. Second, it aggregates nodes belonging to the same community and builds a new network whose nodes are the communities. These steps are repeated to maximize modularity of the clustering result.

2.2 Word Sense Induction

Word Sense Induction is an unsupervised knowledge-free approach to Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD): It uses neither handcrafted lexical resources nor hand-annotated sense-labeled corpora. Instead, it induces word sense inventories automatically from corpora. Unsupervised WSD methods fall into two main categories: context clustering and word ego network clustering.

Context clustering approaches, such as Pedersen and Bruce (1997) and Schütze (1998), represent an instance usually by a vector that characterizes its context, where the definition of context can vary greatly. These vectors of each instance are then clustered.

Schütze (1998) induced sparse sense vectors by clustering context vectors, using the expectation-maximization algorithm. This approach is fitted with a similarity-based WSD mechanism. Pantel and Lin (2002) used a two-staged Clustering by Committee algorithm. In the first stage, it uses average-link clustering to find small and tight clusters, which are used to iteratively identify committees from these clusters. Reisinger and Mooney (2010) presented a multi-prototype vector space. Sparse tf–idf vectors are clustered, using a parametric method fixing the same number of senses for all words. Sense vectors are centroids of the clusters.

Whereas most dense word vector models represent a word with a single vector and thus conflate senses (Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington, Socher, and Manning, 2014), there are several approaches that produce word sense embeddings. Multi-prototype extensions of the Skip-Gram model (Mikolov et al., 2013) that use no predefined sense inventory learn one embedding word vector per one word sense and are commonly fitted with a disambiguation mechanism (Huang et al., 2012; Apidianaki and Sagot, 2014; Neelakantan et al., 2014; Tian et al., 2014; Li and Jurafsky, 2015; Bartunov et al., 2016; Cocos and Callison-Burch, 2016; Pelevina et al., 2016; Thomason and Mooney, 2017).

Huang et al. (2012) introduced multiple word prototypes for dense vector representations (embeddings). Their approach is based on a neural network architecture; during training, all contexts of the word are clustered.

Apidianaki and Sagot (2014) use an aligned parallel corpus and WordNet for English to perform cross-lingual word sense disambiguation to produce French synsets. However, Cocos and Callison-Burch (2016) showed that it is possible to successfully perform a monolingual word sense induction using only such a paraphrase corpus as Paraphrase Database (Pavlick et al., 2015).

Tian et al. (2014) introduced a probabilistic extension of the Skip-Gram model (Mikolov et al., 2013) that learns multiple sense-aware prototypes weighted by their prior probability. These models use parametric clustering algorithms that produce a fixed number of senses per word.

Neelakantan et al. (2014) proposed a multi-sense extension of the Skip-Gram model, which was the first one to learn the number of senses by itself. During training, a new sense vector is allocated if the current context’s similarity to existing senses is below some threshold. All previously mentioned sense embeddings were evaluated on the contextual word similarity task, each one improving upon previous models.

Nieto Piña and Johansson (2015) presented another multi-prototype modification of the Skip-Gram model. Their approach outperforms that of Neelakantan et al. (2014), but requires the number of senses for each word to be set manually.

Bartunov et al. (2016) introduced AdaGram, a non-parametric method for learning sense embeddings based on a Bayesian extension of the Skip-Gram model. The granularity of learned sense embeddings is controlled by the α parameter.

Li and Jurafsky (2015) proposed an approach for learning sense embeddings based on the Chinese Restaurant Process. A new sense is allocated if a new word context is significantly different from existing senses. The approach was tested on multiple NLP tasks, showing that sense embeddings can significantly improve the performance of part-of-speech tagging, semantic relationship identification, and semantic relatedness tasks, but yield no improvement for named entity recognition and sentiment analysis.

Thomason and Mooney (2017) performed multi-modal word sense induction by combining both language and vision signals. In this approach, word embeddings are learned from the ImageNet corpus (Deng et al., 2009) and visual features are obtained from a deep neural network. Running a k-means algorithm on the joint feature set produces WordNet-like synsets.

Word ego network clustering methods cluster graphs of words semantically related to the ambiguous word (Lin, 1998; Pantel and Lin, 2002; Widdows and Dorow, 2002; Biemann, 2006; Hope and Keller, 2013a). An ego network consists of a single node (ego), together with the nodes they are connected to (alters), and all the edges among those alters (Everett and Borgatti, 2005). In our case, such a network is a local neighborhood of one word. Nodes of the ego network can be (1) words semantically similar to the target word, as in our approach, or (2) context words relevant to the target, as in the UoS system (Hope and Keller, 2013b). Graph edges represent semantic relationships between words derived using corpus-based methods (e.g., distributional semantics) or gathered from dictionaries. The sense induction process using word graphs is explored by Widdows and Dorow (2002), Biemann (2006), and Hope and Keller (2013a). Disambiguation of instances is performed by assigning the sense with the highest overlap between the instance’s context words and the words of the sense cluster. Véronis (2004) compiles a corpus with contexts of polysemous nouns using a search engine. A word graph is built by drawing edges between co-occurring words in the gathered corpus, where edges below a certain similarity threshold were discarded. His HyperLex algorithm detects hubs of this graph, which are interpreted as word senses. Disambiguation in this experiment is performed by computing the distance between context words and hubs in this graph.

Di Marco and Navigli (2013) present a comprehensive study of several graph-based WSI methods, including CW, HyperLex, and curvature clustering (Dorow et al., 2005). Additionally, the authors propose two novel algorithms: Balanced Maximum Spanning Tree Clustering and Squares (B-MST), and Triangles and Diamonds (SquaT++). To construct graphs, authors use first-order and second-order relationships extracted from a background corpus as well as keywords from snippets. This research goes beyond intrinsic evaluations of induced senses and measures the impact of the WSI in the context of an information retrieval via clustering and diversifying Web search results. Depending on the data set, HyperLex, B-MST, or CW provided the best results. For a comparative study of graph clustering algorithms for word sense induction in a pseudo-word evaluation confirming the effectiveness of CW, see Cecchini et al. (2018).

Methods based on clustering of synonyms, such as our approach and MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013a), induce the resource from an ambiguous graph of synonyms where edges are extracted from manually created resources. To the best of our knowledge, most experiments either used graph-based word sense induction applied to text-derived graphs or relied on a linking-based method that already assumes the availability of a WordNet-like resource. A notable exception is the ECO (Extraction, Clustering, Ontologization) approach by Gonçalo Oliveira and Gomes (2014), which was applied to induce a WordNet of the Portuguese language called Onto.PT.2 ECO is a fuzzy clustering algorithm that was used to induce synsets for a Portuguese WordNet from several available synonymy dictionaries. The algorithm starts by adding random noise to edge weights. Then, the approach applies Markov Clustering (Section 2.1) of this graph several times to estimate the probability of each word pair being in the same synset. Finally, candidate pairs over a certain threshold are added to output synsets. We compare this approach to five other state-of-the-art graph clustering algorithms described in Section 2.1 as the baselines.

2.3 Semantic Frame Induction

Frame Semantics was originally introduced by Fillmore (1982) and further developed in the FrameNet project (Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe, 1998). FrameNet is a lexical resource composed of a collection of semantic frames, relationships between them, and a corpus of frame occurrences in text. This annotated corpus gave rise to the development of frame parsers using supervised learning (Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002; Erk and Padó, 2006; Das et al., 2014, inter alia), as well as its application to a wide range of tasks, ranging from answer extraction in Question Answering (Shen and Lapata, 2007) and Textual Entailment (Burchardt et al., 2009; Ben Aharon, Szpektor, and Dagan, 2010).

However, frame-semantic resources are arguably expensive and time-consuming to build because of difficulties in defining the frames, their granularity and domain, as well as the complexity of the construction and annotation tasks. Consequently, such resources exist only for a few languages (Boas, 2009) and even English is lacking domain-specific frame-based resources. Possible inroads are cross-lingual semantic annotation transfer (Padó and Lapata, 2009; Hartmann, Eckle-Kohler, and Gurevych, 2016) or linking FrameNet to other lexical-semantic or ontological resources (Narayanan et al., 2003; Tonelli and Pighin, 2009; Laparra and Rigau, 2010; Gurevych et al., 2012, inter alia). One inroad for overcoming these issues is automatizing the process of FrameNet construction through unsupervised frame induction techniques, as investigated by the systems described next.

LDA-Frames (Materna, 2012, 2013) is an approach to inducing semantic frames using a latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) by Blei, Ng, and Jordan (2003) for generating semantic frames and their respective frame-specific semantic roles at the same time. The authors evaluated their approach against the CPA corpus (Hanks and Pustejovsky, 2005). Although Ritter, Mausam, and Etzioni (2010) have applied LDA for inducing structures similar to frames, their study is focused on the extraction of mutually related frame arguments.

ProFinder (Cheung, Poon, and Vanderwende, 2013) is another generative approach that also models both frames and roles as latent topics. The evaluation was performed on the in-domain information extraction task MUC-4 (Sundheim, 1992) and on the text summarization task TAC-2010.3

Modi, Titov, and Klementiev (2012) build on top of an unsupervised semantic role labeling model (Titov and Klementiev, 2012). The raw text of sentences from the FrameNet data is used for training. The FrameNet gold annotations are then used to evaluate the labeling of the obtained frames and roles, effectively clustering instances known during induction.

Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer (2014) harvest a huge collection of verbal predicates along with their argument instances and then apply the Chinese Restaurant Process clustering algorithm to group predicates with similar arguments. The approach was evaluated on the verb cluster data set of Korhonen, Krymolowski, and Marx (2003).

These and some other related approaches (e.g., the one by O’Connor, 2013), were all evaluated in completely different incomparable settings, and used different input corpora, making it difficult to judge their relative performance.

2.4 Semantic Class Induction

The problem of inducing semantic classes from text, also known as semantic lexicon induction, has also been extensively explored in previous works. This is because inducing semantic classes directly from text has the potential to avoid the limited coverage problems of knowledge bases like Freebase, DBpedia (Bizer et al., 2009), or BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012), which rely on Wikipedia (Hovy, Navigli, and Ponzetto, 2013), as well as to allow for resource induction across domains (Hovy et al., 2011). Information about semantic classes, in turn, has been shown to benefit such high-level NLP tasks as coreference (Ng, 2007).

Induction of semantic classes as a research direction in the field of NLP starts, to the best of our knowledge, with Lin and Pantel (2001), where sets of similar words are clustered into concepts. This approach performs a hard clustering and does not label clusters, but these drawbacks are addressed by Pantel and Lin (2002), where words can belong to several clusters, thus representing senses.

Pantel and Ravichandran (2004) aggregate hypernyms per cluster, which come from Hearst (1992) patterns. Pattern-based approaches were further developed using graph-based methods using a PageRank-based weighting (Kozareva, Riloff, and Hovy, 2008), random walks (Talukdar et al., 2008), or heuristic scoring (Qadir et al., 2015). Other approaches use probabilistic graphical models, such as the ones proposed by Ritter, Mausam, and Etzioni (2010) and Hovy et al. (2011). To ensure the overall quality of extraction pattern with minimal supervision, Thelen and Riloff (2002) explored a bootstrapping approach, later extended by McIntosh and Curran (2009) with bagging and distributional similarity to minimize the semantic drift problem of iterative bootstrapping algorithms.

As an alternative to pattern-based methods, Panchenko et al. (2018b) show how to apply semantic classes to improve hypernymy extraction and taxonomy induction. Like in our experiments in Section 6, it uses a distributional thesaurus as input, as well as multiple pre- and post-processing stages to filter the input graph and disambiguate individual nodes. In contrast to Pachenko et al., here we directly apply the Watset algorithm to obtain the resulting distributional semantic classes instead of using a sophisticated parametric pipeline that performs a sequence of clustering and pruning steps.

Another related strain of research to semantic class induction is dedicated to the automatic set expansion task (Sarmento et al., 2007; Wang and Cohen, 2008; Pantel et al., 2009; Rong et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2017). In this task, a set of input lexical entries, such as words or entities, is provided (e.g., “apple, mango, pear, banana”). The system is expected to extend this initial set with relevant entries (such as other fruits in this case, e.g., “peach” and “lemon”). Besides the academic publications listed above, Google Sets was an industrial system for providing similar functionality.4

3. Watset, an Algorithm for Fuzzy Graph Clustering

In this section, we present Watset, a meta-algorithm for fuzzy graph clustering. Given a graph connecting potentially ambiguous objects (e.g., words), Watset induces a set of unambiguous overlapping clusters (communities) by disambiguating and grouping the ambiguous objects. Watset is a meta-algorithm that uses existing hard clustering algorithms for graphs to obtain a fuzzy clustering (e.g., soft clustering).

In computational linguistics, graph clustering is used for addressing problems such as word sense induction (Biemann, 2006), lexical chain computing (Medelyan, 2007), Web search results diversification (Di Marco and Navigli, 2013), sentiment analysis (Pang and Lee, 2004), and cross-lingual semantic relationship induction (Lewis and Steedman, 2013b); more applications can be found in the book by Mihalcea and Radev (2011).

Definitions.

Let G = (V,E) be an undirected simple graph,5 where V is a set of nodes and EV2 is a set of undirected edges. We denote a subset of nodes CiV as a cluster. A graph clustering algorithm then is a function Cluster : (V,E) → C such that V=CiCCi. We distinguish two classes of graph clustering algorithms: hard clustering algorithms (partitionings) produce non-overlapping clusters, that is, CiCj = ij, ∀Ci,CjC, whereas fuzzy clustering algorithms permit cluster overlapping, that is, a node can be a member of several clusters in C.

3.1 Outline of Watset, a Fuzzy Method for Local-Global Graph Clustering

Watset constructs an intermediate representation of the input graph called a sense graph, which has been sketched as a “disambiguated word graph” in Biemann (2012). This is achieved by node sense induction based on hard clustering of the input graph node neighborhoods. The sense graph has the edges established between the different senses of the input graph nodes. The global clusters of the input graph are obtained by applying a hard clustering algorithm to the sense graph; removal of the sense labels yields overlapping clusters.

An outline of our algorithm is depicted in Figure 1. Watset takes an undirected graph G = (V,E) as the input and outputs a set of clusters C. The algorithm has two steps: local and global. The local step, as described in Section 3.2, disambiguates the potentially ambiguous nodes in G. The global step, as described in Section 3.3, uses these disambiguated nodes to construct an intermediate sense graph G=(V,E) and produce the overlapping clustering C. Watset is parameterized by two graph partitioning algorithms ClusterLocal and ClusterGlobal, and a context similarity measure sim. The complete pseudocode of Watset is presented in Algorithm 1. For the sake of illustration, while describing the approach, we will provide examples with words and their synonyms. However, Watset is not bound only to the lexical units and relationships, so our examples are given without loss of generality. Note also that Watset can be applied for both unweighted and weighted graphs as soon as the underlying hard clustering algorithms ClusterLocal and ClusterGlobal take edge weights into account.

graphic

Figure 1 

The outline of the Watset algorithm showing the local step of word sense induction and context disambiguation, and the global step of sense graph constructing and clustering.

Figure 1 

The outline of the Watset algorithm showing the local step of word sense induction and context disambiguation, and the global step of sense graph constructing and clustering.

3.2 Local Step: Node Sense Induction and Disambiguation

The local step of Watset discovers the node senses in the input graph and uses this information to discover which particular senses of the nodes were connected via the edges of the input graph G.

3.2.1 Node Sense Induction

We induce node senses using the word neighborhood clustering approach by Dorow and Widdows (2003). In particular, we assume that the removal of the nodes participating in many triangles separates a graph into several connected components. Each component corresponds to the sense of the target node, so this procedure is executed for every node independently. Figure 2 illustrates this approach for sense induction. For related work on word sense induction approaches, see the survey in Section 2.2.

Figure 2 

Clustering the neighborhood of the node “bank” of the input graph results in two clusters treated as the non-disambiguated sense contexts: bank1 = {streambank, riverbank, …} and {bank2 = bank building, building, …}.

Figure 2 

Clustering the neighborhood of the node “bank” of the input graph results in two clusters treated as the non-disambiguated sense contexts: bank1 = {streambank, riverbank, …} and {bank2 = bank building, building, …}.

Given a node uV, we extract its open neighborhood Gu = (Vu,Eu) from the input graph G, such that the target node u is not included into Vu (lines 3–5):
Vu={vV:{u,v}E}
(1)
Eu={{v,w}E:v,wVu}
(2)
Then, we run a hard graph clustering algorithm on Gu that assigns one node to one and only one cluster, yielding a clustering Cu (line 6). We treat each obtained cluster CuiCuVu as representing a context for a different sense of the node uV (lines 7–9). We denote, for example, bank1, bank2, and other labels as the node senses referred to as senses(bank). In the example in Table 2, senses(bank)=4. Given a sense ui ∈senses(u), we denote ctx(ui)=Cui as a context of this sense of the node uV. Execution of this procedure for all the words in V results in the set of senses for the global step (line 10):
V=uVsenses(u)
(3)
Table 2 
Example of induced senses for the node “bank” and the corresponding clusters (contexts).
SenseContext
bank1 {streambank, riverbank,… } 
bank2 {bank building, building,… } 
bank3 {bank company, … } 
bank4 {coin bank,penny bank,… } 
SenseContext
bank1 {streambank, riverbank,… } 
bank2 {bank building, building,… } 
bank3 {bank company, … } 
bank4 {coin bank,penny bank,… } 

3.2.2 Disambiguation of Neighbors

Although at the previous step we have induced node senses and mapped them to the corresponding contexts (Table 2), the elements of these contexts do not contain sense information. For example, the context of bank2 in Figure 3 has two elements {bankbuilding?,building?}, the sense labels of which are currently not known. We recover the sense labels of nodes in a context using the sense disambiguated approach proposed by Faralli et al. (2016) as follows.

Figure 3 

Contexts for two different senses of the node “bank”: only its senses bank1 and bank2 are currently known, whereas the other nodes in contexts need to be disambiguated.

Figure 3 

Contexts for two different senses of the node “bank”: only its senses bank1 and bank2 are currently known, whereas the other nodes in contexts need to be disambiguated.

We represent each context as a vector in a vector space model (Salton, Wong, and Yang, 1975) constructed for all the contexts. Because the graph G is simple (Section 3) and the context of any sense ûV does not include the corresponding node uV (Table 2), we temporarily put it into context during disambiguation. This prevents the situation of non-matching when the context of a candidate sense v′∈senses(v) has only one element and that element is u, that is, ctx(v′) = {u}. We intentionally perform this insertion temporarily only during matching to prevent self-referencing. When a context ctx(û)V is transformed into a vector, we assign to each element vctx(û) of this vector a weight equal to the weight of the edge {u,v}∈ E of the input graph G. If G is unweighted, we assign 1 if and only if {u,v}∈ E, otherwise 0 is assigned. Table 3 shows an example of the context vectors used for disambiguating the word building in the context of the sense bank2 in Figure 3. In this example the vectors essentially represent one-hot encoding as the example input graph is unweighted.

Table 3 
An example of context vectors for the node senses demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4. Because the graph is unweighted, one-hot encoding has been used. For matching purposes, the word “bank” is temporarily added into ctx(bank2).
Sensebankbank buildingbuildingconstructionedifice
bank2 
building1 
building2 
Sensebankbank buildingbuildingconstructionedifice
bank2 
building1 
building2 
Then, given a sense ûV of a node uV and the context of this sense ctx(û)V, we disambiguate each node vctx(û). For that, we find the sense v^senses(v) the context ctx(v^)V, which maximizes the similarity to the target context ctx(û). We compute the similarity using a context similarity measure sim: (ctx(a),ctx(b)) →ℝ, ∀ctx(a),ctx(b) ⊆ V.6 Typical choices for the similarity measure are dot product, cosine similarity, Jaccard index, etc. Hence, we disambiguate each context element vctx(û):
v^=argmaxvsenses(v)sim(ctx(û){u},ctx(v))
(4)

An example in Figure 4 illustrates the node sense disambiguation process. The context of the sense bank2 is ctx(bank2) = {building,bank building} and the disambiguation target is building. Having chosen cosine similarity as the context similarity measure, we compute the similarity between ctx(bank2 ∪{bank}) and the context of every sense of building in Table 3: cos(ctx(bank2){bank},ctx(building1))=23 and cos(ctx(bank2){bank},ctx(building2))=0. Therefore, for the word building in the context of bank2, its first sense, building1, should be used because its similarity value is higher.

Figure 4 

Matching the meaning of the ambiguous node “building” in the context of the sense bank2. For matching purposes, the word “bank” is temporarily added into ctx(bank2).

Figure 4 

Matching the meaning of the ambiguous node “building” in the context of the sense bank2. For matching purposes, the word “bank” is temporarily added into ctx(bank2).

Finally, we construct a disambiguated context ctx^(û)V that is a sense-aware representation of ctx(û). This disambiguated context indicates which node senses were connected to ûV in the input graph G. For that, in lines 13–15, we apply the disambiguation procedure defined in Equation (4) for every node vctx(û):
ctx^(û)={v^V:vctx(û)}
(5)

As the result of the local step, for each node uV in the input graph, we induce the senses(u)V of nodes and provide each sense ûV with a disambiguated context ctx^(û)V.

3.3 Global Step: Sense Graph Construction and Clustering

The global step of Watset constructs an intermediate sense graph expressing the connections between the node senses discovered at the local step. We assume that the nodes V of the sense graph are non-ambiguous, so running a hard clustering algorithm on this graph outputs clusters C covering the set of nodes V of the input graph G.

3.3.1 Sense Graph Construction

Using the set of node senses defined in Equation (3), we construct the sense graph G=(V,E) by establishing undirected edges between the senses connected through the disambiguated contexts (lines 16–17):
E={{û,v^}V2:v^ctx^(û)}
(6)

Note that this edge construction approach disambiguates the edges E such that if a pair of nodes was connected in the input graph G, then the corresponding sense nodes will be connected in the sense graph G. As a result, the constructed sense graph G is a sense-aware representation of the input graph G. In the event G is weighted, we assign each edge {û,v^}E the same weight as the edge {u,v}∈ E has in the input graph.

3.3.2 Sense Graph Clustering

Running a hard clustering algorithm on G produces the set of sense-aware clusters C; each sense-aware cluster CiC is a subset of V (line 18). In order to obtain the set of clusters C that covers the set of nodes V of the input graph G, we simply remove the sense labels from the elements of clusters C (line 19):
C={{uV:ûCi}V:CiC}
(7)

Figure 5 illustrates the sense graph and its clustering in the example of the node “bank.” The construction of a sense graph requires disambiguation of the input graph nodes. Note that traditional approaches to graph-based sense induction, such as the ones proposed by Véronis (2004), Biemann (2006), and Hope and Keller (2013a), do not perform this step, but perform only local clustering of the graph because they do not aim at a global representation of clusters.

Figure 5 

Clustering of the sense graphG yields two clusters, {bank1, streambank3, riverbank2, …} and {bank2, bankbuilding1,building2, …}; if one removes the sense labels, the clusters will overlap, resulting in a soft clustering of the input graph G.

Figure 5 

Clustering of the sense graphG yields two clusters, {bank1, streambank3, riverbank2, …} and {bank2, bankbuilding1,building2, …}; if one removes the sense labels, the clusters will overlap, resulting in a soft clustering of the input graph G.

As the result of the global step, a set of clusters C of the input graph G is obtained, using an intermediate sense-aware graph G. The presented local-global graph clustering approach, Watset, makes it possible to naturally achieve a soft clustering of a graph using hard clustering algorithms only.

graphic

3.4 Simplified Watset

The original Watset algorithm, as previously published (Ustalov, Panchenko, and Biemann, 2017) and described in Section 3.1, has context construction and disambiguation steps. These steps involve computation of a context similarity measure, which needs to be chosen as a hyper-parameter of the algorithm (Section 3.2.2). In this section, we propose a simplified version of Watset (Algorithm 2) that requires no context similarity measure, which leads to faster computation in practice with less hyper-parameter tuning. As our experiments throughout this article show, this simplified version demonstrates similar performance to the original Watset algorithm.

In the input graph G a pair of nodes {u,v}∈ V2 can be incident to one and only one edge. Otherwise, these nodes are not connected. Because of the use of a hard clustering algorithm for node sense induction (Section 2.2), in any pair of nodes {u,v}∈ E, the node v can appear in the context of only one sense of u and vice versa. Therefore, we can omit the context disambiguation step (Section 3.2.2) by tracking the node sense identifiers produced during sense induction.

Given a pair {u,v}∈ E, we reuse the sense information from Table 2 to determine which context of a sense ûV contains v. We denote this as senses[u][v] ∈ℕ, which indicates v ∈ctx(usenses[u][v]), that is, the fact that node v is connected to the node u in the specified sense usenses[u][v]. Following the example in Figure 2, if the context of bank1 contains the word streambank, then the context of one of the senses of streambank must contain the word bank (e.g., streambank3). This information allows us to create Table 4, which allows producing the set of sense-aware edges by simultaneously retrieving the corresponding sense identifiers:
E={usenses[u][v],vsenses[v][u]}V2:{u,v}E
(8)
Table 4
Node sense identifier tracking in Simplified Watset, according to Figure 2.
SourceTargetIndex
bank streambank 
 riverbank 
 streamside 
 
 building 
 bank building 
 
streambank bank 
 riverbank 
 
… 
SourceTargetIndex
bank streambank 
 riverbank 
 streamside 
 
 building 
 bank building 
 
streambank bank 
 riverbank 
 
… 

This allows us to construct the sense graph G in linear time O(|E|) by querying the node sense index to disambiguate the input edges E in a deterministic way. Other steps are identical to the original Watset algorithm (Section 3.1). Simplified Watset is presented in Algorithm 2.

3.5 Algorithmic Complexity

We analyze the computational complexity of the separate routines of Watset and then present the overall complexity compared with other hard and soft clustering algorithms. Our analysis is based on the assumption that the context similarity measure in Equation (4) can be computed in linear time with respect to the number of dimensions d ∈ℕ. For instance, such measures as cosine and Jaccard satisfy this requirement. In all our experiments throughout this article, we use the cosine similarity measure: sim(ctx(a),ctx(b))=cos(ctx(a),ctx(b)), ∀ctx(a),ctx(b) ⊆ V. Provided that the context vectors are normalized, the complexity of such a measure is bound by the complexity of an inner product of two vectors, which is O(ctx(a)ctx(b)).

Because the running time of our algorithm depends on the task-specific choice of two hard clustering algorithms, ClusterLocal and ClusterGlobal, we report algorithm-specific analysis on two hard clustering algorithms that are popular in computational linguistics: CW by Biemann (2006) and MCL by van Dongen (2000). Given a graph G = (V,E), the computational complexity is O(E) for CW and O(V3) for MCL.7 Additionally, we denote degmax as the maximum degree of G. Note that although, in general, degmax is bound by |V |, in the real natural language-derived graphs this variable is distributed according to a power law. It is small for the majority of the nodes in a graph, making average running times acceptable in practice, as presented in Section 3.5.5.

3.5.1 Node Sense Induction

This operation is executed for every node of the input graph G, that is, V times. By definition of an undirected graph, the maximum number of neighbors of a node in G is degmax and the maximum number of edges in a neighborhood is degmax(degmax1)2. Thus, this operation takes O(Vdegmax2) steps with CW and O(Vdegmax3) steps with MCL.

3.5.2 Disambiguation of Neighbors

Let sensesmax be the maximum number of senses for a node and ctxmax be the maximum size of the node sense context. Thus, this operation takes O(V×sensesmax×ctxmax) steps to iterate over all the node sense contexts. At each iteration, it scans all the senses of the ambiguous node in context and computes a similarity between its context and the candidate sense context in a linear time (Section 3.5). This requires O(sensesmax ×ctxmax) steps per each node in context. Therefore, the whole operation takes O(V×sensesmax2×ctxmax2) steps. Because the maximum number of node senses is observed in a special case when the neighborhood is an unconnected graph, sensesmax ≤degmax. Given the fact that the maximum context size is observed in a special case when the neighborhood is a fully connected graph, ctxmax ≤degmax. Thus, disambiguation of all the node sense contexts takes O(Vdegmax4) steps. Note that because the simplified version of Watset, as described in Section 3.4, does not perform context disambiguation, this term should be taken into account only for the original version of Watset (Algorithm 1).

3.5.3 Sense Graph Clustering

Like the input graph G, the sense graph G is undirected, so it has at most Vdegmax nodes and Vdegmax(Vdegmax1)2 edges. Thus, this operation takes O(V2degmax2) steps with CW and O(V3degmax3) steps with MCL.

3.5.4 Overall Complexity

Table 5 presents a comparison of Watset to other hard and soft graph clustering algorithms popular in computational linguistics,8 such as CW by Biemann (2006), MCL by van Dongen (2000), and MaxMax by Hope and Keller (2013a). Additionally, we compare Watset with several graph clustering algorithms that are popular in network science, such as the Louvain method by Blondel et al. (2008) and CPM by Palla et al. (2005). The notation Watset[MCL, CW] means using MCL for local clustering and CW for global clustering (cf. the discussion on graph clustering algorithms in Section 2.1).

Table 5
Computational complexity of graph clustering algorithms, where |V | is the number of vertices, |E| is the number of edges, and degmax is the maximum degree of a vertex. For brevity, we do not insert rows corresponding to Simplified Watset (Algorithm 2), which does not require the O(|V|degmax4) term related to context disambiguation.
AlgorithmHard or SoftComputational Complexity
Chinese Whispers (Biemann, 2006hard O(E) 
Markov Clustering (van Dongen, 2000hard O(V3) 
MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013asoft O(E) 
 
Louvain method (Blondel et al., 2008hard O(Vlog(V)) 
Clique Percolation (Palla et al., 2005soft 2V 
 
Watset[CW, CW] soft O(|V|2degmax2+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[CW, MCL] soft O(|V|3degmax3+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[MCL, CW] soft O(|V|2degmax2+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[MCL, MCL] soft O(|V|3degmax3+|V|degmax4) 
AlgorithmHard or SoftComputational Complexity
Chinese Whispers (Biemann, 2006hard O(E) 
Markov Clustering (van Dongen, 2000hard O(V3) 
MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013asoft O(E) 
 
Louvain method (Blondel et al., 2008hard O(Vlog(V)) 
Clique Percolation (Palla et al., 2005soft 2V 
 
Watset[CW, CW] soft O(|V|2degmax2+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[CW, MCL] soft O(|V|3degmax3+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[MCL, CW] soft O(|V|2degmax2+|V|degmax4) 
Watset[MCL, MCL] soft O(|V|3degmax3+|V|degmax4) 

The analysis shows that the most time-consuming operations in Watset are sense graph clustering and context disambiguation. Although the overall computational complexity of our meta-algorithm is higher than that of the other methods, its compute-intensive operations, such as node sense induction and context disambiguation, are executed for every node independently, so the algorithm can easily be run in a parallel or a distributed way to reduce the running time.

3.5.5 An Empirical Evaluation of Average Running Times

In order to evaluate the running time of Watset on a real-world scenario, we applied it to the clustering of co-occurrence graphs. Word clusters discovered from co-occurrence graphs are the sets of semantically related polysemous words, so we ran our sense-aware clustering algorithm to obtain overlapping word clusters.

We used the English word co-occurrence graphs from the Leipzig Corpora Collection by Goldhahn, Eckart, and Quasthoff (2012) because it is partitioned into corpora of different sizes.9 We evaluated the graphs corresponding to five different English corpus sizes: 10K, 30K, 100K, 300K, and 1M tokens (Table 6). The measurements were made independently among the graphs using the Watset[CW, CW] algorithm with the lowest complexity bound by O(V2degmax2+Vdegmax4).

Table 6
Parameters of the co-occurrence graphs for different corpus sizes in the Leipzig Corpora Collection, where |V | is the number of vertices, |E| is the number of edges, and degmax is the maximum degree of a vertex; time is measured in minutes.
Size|V||E|degmaxSequential Time, min.Parallel Time, min.
10K 4,907 16,057 547 0.13 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.00 
30K 11,627 55,181 1,307 0.91 ± 0.05 0.36 ± 0.02 
100K 27,200 203,946 3,319 9.33 ± 0.13 3.78 ± 0.08 
300K 55,359 630,138 7,467 53.34 ± 0.16 24.44 ± 0.18 
1M 117,141 2,031,283 18,081 347.16 ± 1.97 158.00 ± 1.88 
Size|V||E|degmaxSequential Time, min.Parallel Time, min.
10K 4,907 16,057 547 0.13 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.00 
30K 11,627 55,181 1,307 0.91 ± 0.05 0.36 ± 0.02 
100K 27,200 203,946 3,319 9.33 ± 0.13 3.78 ± 0.08 
300K 55,359 630,138 7,467 53.34 ± 0.16 24.44 ± 0.18 
1M 117,141 2,031,283 18,081 347.16 ± 1.97 158.00 ± 1.88 

Because our implementation of Watset in the Java programming language, as described in Section 7, is multi-threaded and runs node sense induction and context disambiguation steps in parallel, we study the benefit of multiple available central processing unit (CPU) cores to the overall running time. The single-threaded setup that uses only one CPU core will be referred to as sequential, while the multi-threaded setup that uses all the CPU cores available on the machine will be referred to as parallel.

For each graph, we ran Watset five times. Following Horký et al. (2015), the first three runs were used off-record to warm-up the Java virtual machine. The next two runs were used for actual measurement. We used the following computational node for this experiment: two Intel Xeon E5-2630 v4 CPUs, 256 GB of ECC RAM, Ubuntu 16.04.4 LTS (Linux 4.13.0, x86_64), Oracle Java 8b121; 40 logical cores were available in total. Table 6 reports the running time mean and the standard deviation for both setups, sequential and parallel.

Figure 6 shows the polynomial growth of O(|V |2.52), which is smaller than the worst case of O(V2degmax2+Vdegmax4). This is because in co-occurrence graphs, as well as in many other real-world graphs that also exhibit scale-free small world properties (Steyvers and Tenenbaum, 2005), the degree distribution among nodes is strongly right-skewed. This makes Watset useful for processing real-world graphs. Both Table 6 and Figure 6 clearly confirm that Watset scales well and can be parallelized on multiple CPU cores, which makes it possible to process very large graphs.

Figure 6 

Log-log plots showing growth of the empirical average running time in number of nodes (left) and number of edges (right) of two Watset[CWtop, CWtop] setups: sequential and parallel. The dashed line is fitted to the running time data of the sequential version of Watset, showing polynomial growth in O(|V |2.52) and O(|E|1.63), respectively.

Figure 6 

Log-log plots showing growth of the empirical average running time in number of nodes (left) and number of edges (right) of two Watset[CWtop, CWtop] setups: sequential and parallel. The dashed line is fitted to the running time data of the sequential version of Watset, showing polynomial growth in O(|V |2.52) and O(|E|1.63), respectively.

4. Application to Unsupervised Synset Induction

A synset is a set of mutual synonyms, which can be represented as a clique graph where nodes are words and edges are synonymy relationships. Synsets represent word senses and are building blocks of thesauri and lexical ontologies, such as WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998). These resources are crucial for many NLP applications that require common sense reasoning, such as information retrieval (Gong, Cheang, and Hou U, 2005), sentiment analysis (Montejo-Ráez et al., 2014), and question answering (Kwok, Etzioni, and Weld, 2001; Zhou et al., 2013).

For most languages, no manually constructed resource is available that is comparable to the English WordNet in terms of coverage and quality (Braslavski et al., 2016). For instance, Kiselev, Porshnev, and Mukhin (2015) present a comparative analysis of lexical resources available for the Russian language, concluding that there is no resource compared with WordNet in terms of completeness and availability for Russian. This lack of linguistic resources for many languages strongly motivates the development of new methods for automatic construction of WordNet-like resources. In this section, we apply Watset for unsupervised synset induction from a synonymy graph and compare it with state-of-the-art graph clustering algorithms run on the same task.

4.1 Synonymy Graph Construction and Clustering

Wikipedia,10 Wiktionary,11 OmegaWiki,12 and other collaboratively created resources contain a large amount of lexical semantic information—yet are designed to be human-readable and not formally structured. Although semantic relationships can be automatically extracted using tools such as DKPro JWKTL13 by Zesch, Müller, and Gurevych (2008) and Wikokit14 by Krizhanovsky and Smirnov (2013), words in these relationships are not disambiguated. For instance, the synonymy pairs {bank,streambank} and {bank,banking company} will be connected via the word “bank,” although they refer to different senses. This problem stems from the fact that articles in Wiktionary and similar resources list “undisambiguated” synonyms. They are easy to disambiguate for humans while reading a dictionary article but can be a source of errors for language processing systems.

Although large-scale automatically constructed lexical semantic resources like BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012) are available, they contain synsets with relationships other than synonymity. For instance, in BabelNet 4.0, the synset for bank as an institution contains among other things non-synonyms like Monetary intermediation and Money-lenders.15

A synonymy dictionary can be perceived as a graph, where the nodes correspond to lexical units (words) and the edges connect pairs of the nodes when the synonymy relationship between them holds. Because such a graph can easily be obtained for arbitrary language, we expect that constructing and clustering a sense-aware representation of a synonymy graph yields plausible synsets covering polysemous words.

4.1.1 Synonymy Graph Construction

Given a synonymy dictionary, we construct the synonymy graph G = (V,E) as follows. The set of nodes V includes every lexical unit appearing in the input dictionary. An edge in the set of edges EV2 is established if and only if a pair of words are distinguished synonyms, according to the input synonymy dictionary. To enhance our representation with the contextual semantic similarity between synonyms, we assigned every edge {u,v}∈ E a weight equal to the cosine similarity of Skip-Gram word embeddings (Mikolov et al., 2013). As a result, we obtained a weighted synonymy graph G.

4.1.2 Synonymy Graph Clustering

Because the graph G contains both monosemeous and polysemous words without indication of the particular senses, we run Watset to obtain a soft clustering C of the synonymy graph G. Since our algorithm explicitly induces and clusters the word senses, the elements of the clusters C are by definition synsets, that is, sets of words that are synonymous with each other.

4.2 Evaluation

We conduct our experiments on resources from two different languages. We evaluate our approach on two data sets for English to demonstrate its performance in a resource-rich language. Additionally, we evaluate it on two Russian data sets, because Russian is a good example of an under-resourced language with a clear need for synset induction (Kiselev, Porshnev, and Mukhin, 2015).

4.2.1 Experimental Set-Up

We compare Watset with five popular graph clustering methods presented in Section 2.1: CW, MCL, MaxMax, ECO, and the CPM. The first two algorithms perform hard clustering algorithms, and the last three are soft clustering methods just like our method. Although the hard clustering algorithms are able to discover clusters that correspond to synsets composed of unambiguous words, they can produce wrong results in the presence of lexical ambiguity when a node should belong to several synsets. In our experiments, we use CW and MCL also as the underlying algorithms for local and global clustering in Watset, so our comparison will show the difference between the “plain” underlying algorithms and their utilization in Watset. We also report the performance of Simplified Watset (Section 3.4).

In our experiments, we rely on our own implementation of MaxMax and ECO, as reference implementations are not available. For CW,16 MCL,17 and CPM,18 available implementations have been used. During the evaluation, we delete clusters equal to or larger than the threshold of 150 words, as they can hardly represent any meaningful synset. Only the clusters produced by the MaxMax algorithm were actually affected by this threshold.

Quality Measure.
To evaluate the quality of the induced synsets, we transform them into synonymy pairs and computed precision, recall, and F1-score on the basis of the overlap of these synonymy pairs with the synonymy pairs from the gold standard data sets. The F1-score calculated this way is known as paired F-score (Manandhar et al., 2010; Hope and Keller, 2013a). Let C be the set of obtained synsets and CG be the set of gold synsets. Given a synset containing n > 1 words, we generate n(n1)2 pairs of synonyms, so we transform C into a set of pairs P and CG into a set of gold pairs PG. We then compute the numbers of positive and negative answers as follows:
TP=|PPG|
(9)
FP=|PPG|
(10)
FN=|PGP|
(11)
where TP is the number of true positives, FP is the number of false positives, and FN is the number of false negatives. As a result, we use the standard definitions of precision as Pr=TPTP+FP, recall as Re=TPTP+FN, and F1-score as F1=2PrRePr+Re. The advantage of this measure compared with other cluster evaluation measures, such as fuzzy B-Cubed (Jurgens and Klapaftis, 2013) and normalized modified purity (Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer, 2014), is its straightforward interpretability.
Statistical Testing.

We evaluate the statistical significance of the experimental results using a McNemar’s test (1947). Given the results of two algorithms, we build a 2 × 2 contingency table and compute the p-value of the test using the Statsmodels toolkit (Seabold and Perktold, 2010).19 Since the hypothesis tested by the McNemar’s test is whether the results from both algorithms are similar against the alternative that they are not, we use the p-value of this test to assess the significance of the difference between F1-scores (Dror et al., 2018). We consider the performance of one algorithm to be higher than the performance of another if its F1-score is larger and the corresponding p-value is smaller than a significance level of 0.01.

Gold Standards.

We conduct our evaluation on four lexical semantic resources for two different natural languages. Statistics of the gold standard data sets are present in Table 7. We report the number of lexical units (# words), synsets (# synsets), and the generated synonymy pairs (# pairs).

Table 7
Statistics of the gold standard data sets used in our experiments.
ResourceLanguage# words# synsets# pairs
WordNet English 148,730 117,659 152,254 
BabelNet  11,710,137 6,667,855 28,822,400 
 
RuWordNet Russian 110,242 49,492 278,381 
YARN  9,141 2,210 48,291 
ResourceLanguage# words# synsets# pairs
WordNet English 148,730 117,659 152,254 
BabelNet  11,710,137 6,667,855 28,822,400 
 
RuWordNet Russian 110,242 49,492 278,381 
YARN  9,141 2,210 48,291 

We use WordNet,20 a popular English lexical database constructed by expert lexicographers (Fellbaum, 1998). WordNet contains general vocabulary and appears to be the de facto gold standard in similar tasks (Hope and Keller, 2013a). We used WordNet 3.1 to derive the synonymy pairs from synsets. Additionally, to compare to an automatically constructed lexical resource, we use BabelNet,21 a large-scale multilingual semantic network based on WordNet, Wikipedia, and other resources (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012). We retrieved all the synonymy pairs from the BabelNet 3.7 synsets marked as English, using the BabelNet Extract tool (Ustalov and Panchenko, 2017).

As a lexical ontology for Russian, we use RuWordNet22 by Loukachevitch et al. (2016), containing both general vocabulary and domain-specific synsets related to sport, finance, economics, and so forth. Up to one half of the words in this resource are multi-word expressions (Kiselev, Porshnev, and Mukhin, 2015), which is due to the coverage of domain-specific vocabulary. RuWordNet is a WordNet-like version of the RuThes thesaurus that is constructed in the traditional way, namely by a small group of expert lexicographers (Loukachevitch, 2011). In addition, we use Yet Another RussNet23 (YARN) by Braslavski et al. (2016) as another gold standard for Russian. The resource is constructed using crowdsourcing and mostly covers general vocabulary. In particular, non-expert users are allowed to edit synsets in a collaborative way, loosely supervised by a team of project curators. Because of the ongoing development of the resource, we selected as the silver standard only those synsets that were edited at least eight times in order to filter out noisy incomplete synsets.24 We do not use BabelNet for evaluating the Russian synsets, as our manual inspection during prototyping showed, on average, a much lower quality than its English subset.

Input Data.

For each language, we constructed a synonymy graph using openly available synonymy dictionaries. The statistics of the graphs used as the input in the further experiments are shown in Table 8.

Table 8
Statistics of the input data sets used in our experiments.
Language# words# pairs
English 243,840 212,163 
Russian 83,092 211,986 
Language# words# pairs
English 243,840 212,163 
Russian 83,092 211,986 

For English, synonyms were extracted from the English Wiktionary,25 which is the largest Wiktionary at the present moment in terms of the lexical coverage, using the DKPro JWKTL tool by Zesch, Müller, and Gurevych (2008). English words have been extracted from the dump.

For Russian, synonyms from three sources were combined to improve lexical coverage of the input dictionary and to enforce confidence in jointly observed synonyms: (1) synonyms listed in the Russian Wiktionary extracted using the Wikokit tool by Krizhanovsky and Smirnov (2013); (2) the dictionary of Abramov (1999); and (3) the Universal Dictionary of Concepts (Dikonov, 2013). Whereas the two latter resources are specific to Russian, Wiktionary is available for most languages. Note that the same input synonymy dictionaries were used by authors of YARN to construct synsets using crowdsourcing. The results on the YARN data set show how closely an automatic synset induction method can approximate manually created synsets provided the same starting material.26

Because of the vocabulary differences between the input data and the gold standard data sets, we use the intersection between the lexicon of the gold standard and the united lexicon of all the compared configurations of the algorithms during all the experiments in this section.

4.2.2 Parameter Tuning

We tuned the hyper-parameters for such methods as CPM (Palla et al., 2005) and ECO (Gonçalo Oliveira and Gomes, 2014) on the evaluation data set. We do not perform any tuning of Watset because the underlying local and global clustering algorithms, CW and MCL, are parameter-free, so we use default configurations of these and their variations. As CPMk = 3 we denote that this method showed the best performance using the threshold value of k = 3. For ECO, we found the threshold value of θ = 0.05 yielding the best results, as opposed to the value of θ = 0.2 suggested by Gonçalo Oliveira and Gomes (2014).

We also study the performance impact of different edge-weighting approaches for the same input graph. For that, we present the results of running the same algorithms in three different setups: ones that assigns every edge the constant weight of 1, count that weights the edge {u,v}∈ E with the number of times a synonymy pair appeared in the input dictionary, and sim that uses cosine similarity between word embeddings, as described in Section 4.1.1. For English, we use the commonly used 300-dimensional word embeddings trained on the 100 billion tokens Google News corpus.27 For Russian, we use the 500-dimensional embeddings from the Russian Distributional Thesaurus trained on a 12.9 billion tokens corpus of books, which yielded the state-of-art performance on a shared task on Russian semantic similarity (Panchenko et al., 2017).28

4.2.3 Results and Discussion

Figure 7 presents an overview of the evaluation results on both data sets. Because the synonymy graph construction step is the same for all the experiments, we start our analysis with the comparison of different edge-weighting approaches introduced in Section 4.2.2: constant values (ones), frequencies (count), and semantic similarity scores (sim) based on word vector similarity. Results across various configurations and methods indicate that using the weights based on the similarity scores provided by word embeddings is the best strategy for all methods except MaxMax on the English data sets. However, its performance using the ones weighting does not exceed the other methods using the sim weighting. Therefore, we report all further results on the basis of the sim weights. The edge weighting scheme impacts Russian more for most algorithms. The CW algorithm, however, remains sensitive to the weighting also for the English data set due to its randomized nature.

Figure 7 

Impact of the different graph-weighting schemas on the performance of synset induction. Each bar corresponds to the top performance of a method in Tables 9 and 10.

Figure 7 

Impact of the different graph-weighting schemas on the performance of synset induction. Each bar corresponds to the top performance of a method in Tables 9 and 10.

Tables 9 and 10 present evaluation results for both languages. For each method, we show the best configurations in terms of F1-score. One may note that the granularity of the resulting synsets, especially for Russian, is very different, ranging from 4,000 synsets for the CPMk = 3 method to 67,645 induced by the ECO method. Both tables report the number of words, synsets, and synonyms after pruning huge clusters larger than 150 words. Without this pruning, the MaxMax and CPM methods tend to discover giant components obtaining almost zero precision as we generate all possible pairs of nodes in such clusters. The other methods did not exhibit such behavior.

Table 9
Comparison of the synset induction methods on data sets for English. All methods rely on the similarity edge weighting (sim); best configurations of each method in terms of F1-scores are shown for each data set. Results are sorted by F1-score on BabelNet; top three values of each measure are boldfaced, and statistically significant results are marked with an asterisk (*). Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
Method# words# synsets# pairsWordNetBabelNet
PrReF1PrReF1
Watset[MCL, MCL] 243,840 112,267 345,883 34.48 30.82 32.54* 40.01 30.06 34.33* 
MCL 243,840 84,679 387,315 34.21 29.10 31.45* 38.98 29.97 33.89* 
CWtop 243,840 77,879 539,753 28.54 31.67 30.02* 32.57 31.71 32.14* 
Watset[CWlog, MCL] 243,840 164,689 227,906 39.35 27.99 32.71* 43.94 24.47 31.44* 
Watset§[CWtop, MCL] 243,840 164,683 227,872 39.17 27.83 32.54* 43.87 24.40 31.36* 
Watset§[CWlog, MCL] 243,840 165,406 222,554 40.20 27.44 32.62* 44.63 24.09 31.29* 
CPMk = 2 186,896 67,109 317,293 56.06 14.06 22.48* 49.23 21.44 29.87* 
MaxMax 219,892 73,929 797,743 17.59 29.97 22.17* 20.16 31.34 24.53* 
ECO 243,840 171,773 84,372 78.41 6.95 12.77 69.91 9.59 16.87 
Method# words# synsets# pairsWordNetBabelNet
PrReF1PrReF1
Watset[MCL, MCL] 243,840 112,267 345,883 34.48 30.82 32.54* 40.01 30.06 34.33* 
MCL 243,840 84,679 387,315 34.21 29.10 31.45* 38.98 29.97 33.89* 
CWtop 243,840 77,879 539,753 28.54 31.67 30.02* 32.57 31.71 32.14* 
Watset[CWlog, MCL] 243,840 164,689 227,906 39.35 27.99 32.71* 43.94 24.47 31.44* 
Watset§[CWtop, MCL] 243,840 164,683 227,872 39.17 27.83 32.54* 43.87 24.40 31.36* 
Watset§[CWlog, MCL] 243,840 165,406 222,554 40.20 27.44 32.62* 44.63 24.09 31.29* 
CPMk = 2 186,896 67,109 317,293 56.06 14.06 22.48* 49.23 21.44 29.87* 
MaxMax 219,892 73,929 797,743 17.59 29.97 22.17* 20.16 31.34 24.53* 
ECO 243,840 171,773 84,372 78.41 6.95 12.77 69.91 9.59 16.87 
Table 10
Results on data sets for Russian sorted by F1-score on Yet Another RussNet (YARN); top three values of each measure are boldfaced and statistically significant results are marked with an asterisk (*). Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
Method# words# synsets# pairsRuWordNetYARN
PrReF1PrReF1
Watset§[CWlin, MCL] 83,092 58,353 242,615 15.01 32.55 20.55* 46.70 42.69 44.61* 
Watset[CWlin, MCL] 83,092 55,369 332,727 11.95 34.91 17.81* 40.10 46.32 42.99* 
MCL 83,092 21,973 353,848 15.54 29.10 20.26* 54.95 33.94 41.97* 
CWlin 83,092 19,124 672,076 8.73 34.20 13.91* 36.33 45.13 40.25* 
Watset§[MCL, CWlin83,092 62,700 175,643 19.46 28.48 23.12* 52.28 29.41 37.65* 
MaxMax 83,092 27,011 461,748 17.58 26.09 21.01* 58.24 19.49 29.20* 
CPMk = 3 15,555 4,000 45,231 23.44 7.23 11.05* 62.51 6.04 11.02* 
ECO 83,092 67,645 18,362 72.41 3.45 6.58 90.36 0.18 0.36 
Method# words# synsets# pairsRuWordNetYARN
PrReF1PrReF1
Watset§[CWlin, MCL] 83,092 58,353 242,615 15.01 32.55 20.55* 46.70 42.69 44.61* 
Watset[CWlin, MCL] 83,092 55,369 332,727 11.95 34.91 17.81* 40.10 46.32 42.99* 
MCL 83,092 21,973 353,848 15.54 29.10 20.26* 54.95 33.94 41.97* 
CWlin 83,092 19,124 672,076 8.73 34.20 13.91* 36.33 45.13 40.25* 
Watset§[MCL, CWlin83,092 62,700 175,643 19.46 28.48 23.12* 52.28 29.41 37.65* 
MaxMax 83,092 27,011 461,748 17.58 26.09 21.01* 58.24 19.49 29.20* 
CPMk = 3 15,555 4,000 45,231 23.44 7.23 11.05* 62.51 6.04 11.02* 
ECO 83,092 67,645 18,362 72.41 3.45 6.58 90.36 0.18 0.36 

The disambiguation of the input graph performed by the Watset method splits nodes belonging to several local communities to several nodes, significantly facilitating the clustering task otherwise complicated by the presence of the hubs that wrongly link semantically unrelated nodes. Watset robustly outperformed all other methods, according to the F1-score on all the data sets for English (Table 9) and Russian (Table 10). In particular, on WordNet for English, Watset[CWlog, MCL] has statistically significantly outperformed all other methods (p ≪ 0.01), including different configurations of our algorithm. On BabelNet for English, Watset[MCL, MCL] showed a similar behav ior (p ≪ 0.01). On RuWordNet for Russian, Simplified Watset[MCL, CWlin] statis tically significantly outperformed all other algorithms, including highly competitive MCL and MaxMax (p ≪ 0.01). Similarly, on YARN for Russian, Simplified Watset[CWlin, MCL] has significantly outperformed all the other algorithms (p ≪ 0.01).

Interestingly, in all the cases, the toughest competitor was a hard clustering algorithm—MCL (van Dongen, 2000). We observed that the “plain” MCL successfully groups monosemous words, but isolates the neighborhood of polysemous words, which results in the recall drop in comparison to Watset. CW operates more quickly due to a simplified update step. On the same graph, CW tends to produce larger clusters than MCL. This leads to a higher recall of “plain” CW as compared with the “plain” MCL, at the cost of lower precision. Although MCL demonstrated highly competitive results, the best configuration of Watset has statistically significantly outperformed it on all the data sets.

Using MCL instead of CW for sense induction in Watset expectedly produced more fine-grained senses. However, at the global clustering step, these senses erroneously tend to form coarse-grained synsets connecting unrelated senses of the ambiguous words. This explains the generally higher recall of Watset[MCL, ⋅]. Despite the randomized nature of CW, variance across runs do not affect the overall ranking. The rank of different weighting schemes on the node degree of CWtop/lin/log can change, while the rank of the best CW configuration compared to other methods remains the same.

The MaxMax algorithm showed mixed results. On the one hand, it outputs large clusters uniting more than a hundred nodes. This inevitably leads to a high recall, as it is clearly seen in the results for Russian because such synsets still pass under our cluster size threshold of 150 words. Its synsets on the English data sets are even larger and have been pruned, which resulted in the low recall. On the other hand, smaller synsets having at most 10–15 words were identified correctly. MaxMax appears to be extremely sensitive to edge weighting, which also complicates its application in practice.

The CPM algorithm showed unsatisfactory results, emitting giant components encompassing thousands of words. Such clusters were automatically pruned, but the remaining clusters are quite correct synsets, which is confirmed by the high precision values. When increasing the minimal number of elements in the clique k, recall improves, but at the cost of a dramatic precision drop. We suppose that the network structure assumptions exploited by CPM do not accurately model the structure of our synonymy graphs.

Finally, the ECO method yielded the worst results because most of the cluster candidates failed to pass through the constant threshold used for estimating whether a pair of words should be included in the same cluster. Most synsets produced by this method were trivial (i.e., containing only a single word). The remaining synsets for both languages have at most three words that have been connected by chance due to the edge noising procedure used in this method, resulting in a low recall.

The results obtained on all gold standards (Figure 7) show similar trends in terms of relative ranking of the methods. Yet absolute scores of YARN and RuWordNet are substantially different because of the inherent difference of these data sets. RuWordNet is more domain-specific in terms of vocabulary, so our input set of generic synonymy dictionaries has a limited coverage on this data set. On the other hand, recall calculated on YARN is substantially higher as this resource was manually built on the basis of synonymy dictionaries used in our experiments.

Table 11 presents examples of the obtained synsets of various sizes for the top Watset configuration on English. As one might observe, the quality of the results is highly plausible. Because in this configuration we assigned edge weights based on the cosine of the angle between Skip-Gram word vectors (Mikolov et al., 2013), we should note that such an approach assigns high values of similarity not just to synonymous words, but to antonymous and generally any lexically related words. This is a common problem with lexical embedding spaces, which we tried to evade by explicitly using a synonymy dictionary as an input. For example, “audio play” and “radio play,” or “accusative” and “oblique,” are semantically related expressions, but really not synonyms. Such a problem can be addressed using techniques such as retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015) and contextualization (Peters et al., 2018).

Table 11
Sample synsets induced by the Watset[MCL, MCL] method for English using the sim weighting approach.
SizeSynset
decimal point, dot 
wall socket, power point 
gullet, throat, food pipe 
CAT, computed axial tomography, CT 
microwave meal, ready meal, TV dinner, frozen dinner 
mock strawberry, false strawberry, gurbir, Indian strawberry 
objective case, accusative case, oblique case, object case, accusative 
discipline, sphere, area, domain, sector 
radio theater, dramatized audiobook, audio theater, radio play, radio drama, audio play 
integrator, reconciler, consolidator, mediator, harmonizer, uniter 
invite, motivate, entreat, ask for, incentify, ask out, encourage 
curtail, craw, yield, riding crop, harvest, crop, hunting crop 
SizeSynset
decimal point, dot 
wall socket, power point 
gullet, throat, food pipe 
CAT, computed axial tomography, CT 
microwave meal, ready meal, TV dinner, frozen dinner 
mock strawberry, false strawberry, gurbir, Indian strawberry 
objective case, accusative case, oblique case, object case, accusative 
discipline, sphere, area, domain, sector 
radio theater, dramatized audiobook, audio theater, radio play, radio drama, audio play 
integrator, reconciler, consolidator, mediator, harmonizer, uniter 
invite, motivate, entreat, ask for, incentify, ask out, encourage 
curtail, craw, yield, riding crop, harvest, crop, hunting crop 

However, one limitation of all the approaches considered in this section is the dependence on the completeness of the input dictionary of synonyms. In some parts of the input synonymy graph, important bridges between words can be missing, leading to smaller-than-desired synsets. A promising extension of the present methodology is using distributional models to enhance connectivity of the graph by cautiously adding extra relationships (Ustalov et al., 2017).

Cross-Resource Evaluation.

In order to estimate the upper bound of precision, recall, and F1-score in our synset induction experiments, we conducted a cross-resource evaluation between the used gold-standard data sets (Table 12). Similarly to the experimental setup described in Section 4.2.1, we transformed synsets from every data set into sets of synonymy pairs. Then, for every pair of gold standard data sets, we computed the pairwise precision, recall, and F1-score by assessing synset-induced synonymy pairs of one data set on the pairs of another data set. As a result, we see that the low absolute numbers in evaluation are due to an inherent vocabulary mismatch between the input dictionaries of synonyms and the gold data sets because no single resource for Russian can obtain high recall scores on another one. Surprisingly, even BabelNet, which integrates most of the available lexical resources, still does not reach a recall substantially larger than 50%.29 Note that the results of this cross-data set evaluation are not directly comparable to results in Table 10 since in our experiments we use much smaller input dictionaries than those used by BabelNet. Our cross-resource evaluation demonstrates that unlike WordNet and BabelNet, which are built on a similar conceptual basis, RuWordNet and YARN have a very different structure, so an algorithm that shows good results on one will likely not perform very well on another.

Table 12
Performance of lexical resources cross-evaluated against each other.
Input SynsetsGold SynsetsLanguagePrReF1
BabelNet WordNet English 72.93 99.76 84.26 
WordNet BabelNet 99.79 69.86 82.18 
 
YARN RuWordNet Russian 16.36 16.21 16.28 
BabelNet RuWordNet 34.84 40.87 37.61 
 
RuWordNet YARN Russian 66.96 12.13 20.54 
BabelNet YARN 51.53 10.89 17.98 
Input SynsetsGold SynsetsLanguagePrReF1
BabelNet WordNet English 72.93 99.76 84.26 
WordNet BabelNet 99.79 69.86 82.18 
 
YARN RuWordNet Russian 16.36 16.21 16.28 
BabelNet RuWordNet 34.84 40.87 37.61 
 
RuWordNet YARN Russian 66.96 12.13 20.54 
BabelNet YARN 51.53 10.89 17.98 

5. Application to Unsupervised Semantic Frame Induction

In this section, our goal is to investigate the applicability of our graph clustering technique in a different task. Namely, we explore how semantic frames—more complex linguistic structures than synsets—can be induced from text using Watset. A semantic frame is a central concept of the Frame Semantics theory (Fillmore, 1982). A frame is a structure that describes a certain situation or action (e.g., “Dining” or “Kidnapping”) in terms of participants involved in these actions, which fill semantic roles of this frame and words commonly describing such situations. Figure 8 illustrates a part of the “Kidnapping” semantic frame from the FrameNet resource.30

Figure 8 

Definition, examples, core semantic roles, and frame invoking lexical units of the semantic frame “Kidnapping” from the FrameNet resource.

Figure 8 

Definition, examples, core semantic roles, and frame invoking lexical units of the semantic frame “Kidnapping” from the FrameNet resource.

Recent years have seen much work on frame semantics, enabled by the availability of a large set of frame definitions, as well as a manually annotated text corpus provided by the FrameNet project (Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe, 1998). FrameNet data enabled the development of wide-coverage frame parsers using supervised learning (Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002; Erk and Padó, 2006; Das et al., 2014, inter alia), as well as its application to a wide range of tasks, ranging from answer extraction in Question Answering (Shen and Lapata, 2007) and Textual Entailment (Burchardt et al., 2009; Ben Aharon, Szpektor, and Dagan, 2010), to event-based predictions of stock markets (Xie et al., 2013).

However, frame-semantic resources are arguably expensive and time-consuming to build due to difficulties in defining the frames, their granularity, and domain. The complexity of the frame construction and annotation tasks require expertise in the underlying knowledge. Consequently, such resources exist only for a few languages (Boas, 2009) and even English is lacking domain-specific frame-based resources. Possible inroads are cross-lingual semantic annotation transfer (Padó and Lapata, 2009; Hartmann, Eckle-Kohler, and Gurevych, 2016) or linking FrameNet to other lexical-semantic or ontological resources (Narayanan et al., 2003; Tonelli and Pighin, 2009; Laparra and Rigau, 2010; Gurevych et al., 2012, inter alia). But whereas the arguably simpler task of PropBank-based Semantic Role Labeling has been successfully addressed by unsupervised approaches (Lang and Lapata, 2010; Titov and Klementiev, 2011), fully unsupervised frame-based semantic annotation exhibits far more challenges, starting with the preliminary step of automatically inducing a set of semantic frame definitions that would drive a subsequent text annotation. We aim at overcoming these issues by automatizing the process of FrameNet construction through unsupervised frame induction techniques using Watset.

According to our statistics on the dependency-parsed FrameNet corpus of over 150 thousand sentences (Bauer, Fürstenau, and Rambow, 2012), the SUBJ and OBJ relationships are the two most common shortest paths between frame evoking elements (FEEs) and their roles, accounting for 13.5% of instances of a heavy-tail distribution of over 11,000 different paths that occur three times or more in the FrameNet data. Although this might seem a simplification that does not cover prepositional phrases and frames filling the roles of other frames in a nested fashion, we argue that the overall frame inventory can be induced on the basis of this restricted set of constructions, leaving other paths and more complex instances for further work. Thus, we expect the triples obtained from such a Web-scale corpus as DepCC (Panchenko et al., 2018a) to cover most core arguments sufficiently. In contrast to the recent approaches like the one by Jauhar and Hovy (2017), the approach we describe in this section induces semantic frames without any supervision, yet captures only two core roles: the subject and the object of a frame triggered by verbal predicates. Note that it is not generally correct to expect that the SVO triples obtained by a dependency parser are necessarily the core arguments of a predicate. Such roles can be implicit, that is, unexpressed in a given context (Schenk and Chiarcos, 2016), so additional syntactic relationships between frame elements could be taken into account (Kallmeyer, QasemiZadeh, and Cheung, 2018).

We cast the frame induction problem as a triclustering task (Zhao and Zaki, 2005; Ignatov et al., 2015). Triclustering is a generalization of traditional clustering and biclustering problems (Mirkin, 1996, page 144), aiming at simultaneously clustering objects along three dimensions, namely, subject, verb, and object in our case (cf. Table 13). First, triclustering allows us to avoid the prevalent pipelined architecture of frame induction approaches, for example, the one by Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer (2014), where two independent clusterings are needed. Second, benchmarking frame induction as triclustering against other methods on dependency triples makes it possible to abstract away the evaluation of frame induction algorithms from other factors, for example, the input corpus or pre-processing steps, thus allowing a fair comparison of different induction models.

Table 13
Example of a tricluster of lexical units corresponding to the “Kidnapping” frame from FrameNet.
FrameNetRoleLexical Units (LU)
Perpetrator Subject kidnapper, alien, militant 
FEE Verb snatch, kidnap, abduct 
Victim Object son, people, soldier, child 
FrameNetRoleLexical Units (LU)
Perpetrator Subject kidnapper, alien, militant 
FEE Verb snatch, kidnap, abduct 
Victim Object son, people, soldier, child 

5.1 Frame Induction as a Triclustering Task

We focused on a simple setup for semantic frame induction using two roles and SVO triples, arguing that it still can be useful as frame roles are primarily expressed by subjects and objects, giving rise to semantic structures extracted in an unsupervised way with high coverage. Thus, given a vocabulary V and a set of SVO triples TV3 from a syntactically analyzed corpus, our approach for frame induction, called Triframes, constructs a triple graph and clusters it using the Watset algorithm described in Section 3.

Triframes reduces the frame induction problem to a simpler graph clustering problem. The algorithm has three steps: construction, clustering, and extraction. The triple graph construction step, as described in Section 5.1.1, uses a d-dimensional word embedding model vVvRd to embed triples in a dense vector space for establishing edges between them. The graph clustering step, as described in Section 5.1.2, uses a clustering algorithm like Watset to obtain sets of triples corresponding to the instances of the semantic frames. The final aggregation step, as described in Section 5.1.3, transforms the discovered triple clusters into frame-semantic representations. Triframes is parameterized by the number of nearest neighbors k ∈ℕ for establishing edges and a graph clustering algorithm Cluster. The complete pseudocode of Triframes is presented in Algorithm 3.

graphic

5.1.1 SVO Triple Similarity Graph Construction

We construct the triple graph G = (T,E) in which the triples are connected to each other according to the semantic similarity of their elements: subjects, verbs, objects. To express similarity, we embed the triples using distributional representations of words. In particular, we use a word embedding model to map every triple t = (s,p,o) ∈ T to a (3d)-dimensional vector t=spo (lines 1–2). Such a representation enables computing the distance between the triples as a whole rather than between individual elements of them. The use of distributional models like Skip-Gram (Mikolov et al., 2013) makes it possible to take into account the contextual information of the whole triple. The concatenation of the vectors for words forming triples leads to the creation of a (|T|× 3d)-dimensional vector space. Figure 9 illustrates this idea: We expect structurally similar triples of different elements to be located in a dense vector space close to each other, and non-similar triples to be located far away from each other.

Figure 9 

Concatenation of the vectors corresponding to the triple elements, subjects, verbs, and objects, expresses the structural similarity of the triples.

Figure 9 

Concatenation of the vectors corresponding to the triple elements, subjects, verbs, and objects, expresses the structural similarity of the triples.

Given a triple tT, we denote the k ∈ℕ nearest neighbors extraction procedure of its concatenated embedding from the formed vector space as NNk(t) ⊆ T ∖{t}. Then, we use the triple embeddings to generate the undirected graph G = (T,E) by constructing the edge set ET2. For that, we retrieve k nearest neighbors of each triple vector tR3d and establish cosine similarity-weighted edges between the corresponding triples. We establish edges only between the triples appearing in k nearest neighbors (lines 3–4):
E={(t,t)T2:tNNk(t)}
(12)

As a result, the constructed triple graph G has a clustered structure in which the clusters are sets of SVO triples representing the same frame.

5.1.2 Similarity Graph Clustering

We assume that the triples representing similar contexts fill similar roles, which is explicitly encoded by the concatenation of the corresponding vectors of the words constituting the triple (Figure 9). We use the Watset algorithm to obtain the clustering of the SVO triple graph G (line 6). As described in Section 3, our algorithm treats the SVO triples as the vertices T of the input graph G = (T,E), induces their senses (Figure 10), and constructs an intermediate sense-aware representation that is clustered using a hard clustering algorithm like CW (Biemann, 2006). Watset is a suitable algorithm for this problem because of its performance on the related synset induction task (Section 4), its fuzzy nature, and its ability to find the number of frames automatically.

Figure 10 

Example of two senses associated with a triple (government, run, market).

Figure 10 

Example of two senses associated with a triple (government, run, market).

5.1.3 Aggregating Triframes

Finally, for each cluster CiC, we aggregate the subjects, the verbs, and the objects of the contained triples into separate sets (lines 7–9). As a result, each cluster is transformed into a triframe, which is a triple that is composed of the subjects fsV, the verbs fvV, and the objects foV. For example, the triples shown in Figure 9 will form a triframe ({man, people, woman}, {make, earn}, {profit, money}).

5.2 Evaluation

Currently, there is no universally accepted approach for evaluating unsupervised frame induction methods. All the previously developed methods were evaluated on completely different incomparable setups and used different input corpora (Titov and Klementiev, 2012; Materna, 2013; O’Connor, 2013, etc.). We propose a unified methodology by treating the complex multi-stage frame induction task as a straightforward triple clustering task.

5.2.1 Experimental Setup

We compare our method, Triframes Watset, to several avail able state-of-the-art baselines applicable to our data set of triples (Section 2.3). LDA-Frames by Materna (2012, 2013) is a frame induction method based on topic modeling. Higher-Order Skip-Gram (HOSG) by Cotterell et al. (2017) generalizes the Skip-Gram model (Mikolov et al., 2013) by extending it from word-context co-occurrence matrices to tensors factorized with a polyadic decomposition. In our case, this tensor consisted of SVO triple counts. NOAC by Egurnov, Ignatov, and Mephu Nguifo (2017) is an extension of the Object-Attribute-Condition (OAC) triclustering algorithm by Ignatov et al. (2015) to numerically weighted triples. This incremental algorithm searches for dense regions in triadic data. Also, we use five simple baselines. In the Triadic baselines, independent word embeddings of subject, object, and verb are concatenated and then clustered using k-means (Hartigan and Wong, 1979) and spectral clustering (Shi and Malik, 2000). In Triframes CW, instead of Watset, we use CW, a hard graph clustering algorithm (Biemann, 2006). We also evaluate the performance of Simplified Watset (Section 3.4). Finally, two trivial baselines are Singletons that creates a single cluster per instance and Whole that creates one cluster for all elements.

Quality Measure.
Following the approach for verb class evaluation by Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer (2014), we use normalized modified purity (nmPU) and normalized inverse purity (niPU) as the quality measures for overlapping clusterings. Given the clustering C and the gold clustering CG, normalized modified purity quantifies the clustering precision as the average of the weighted overlap δCi(CiCGj) between each cluster CiC and the gold cluster CGiCG, which maximizes the overlap with Ci:
nmPU=1|C|iN:|Ci|>1|C|max1j|CG|δCi(CiCGj)
(13)
where the weighted overlap is the sum of the weights Ci,v for each word vCi in i-th cluster: δCi(CiCGj)=vCiCGjCi,v. Note that nmPU counts all the singleton clusters as wrong. Similarly, normalized inverse purity (collocation) quantifies the clustering recall:
niPU=1|CG|j=1|G|max1i|C|δCGj(CiCGj)
(14)

Then, nmPU and niPU are combined together as the harmonic mean to yield the overall clustering F1-score, computed as F1=2nmPUniPUnmPU+niPU, which we use to rank the approaches.

Our framework can be extended to the evaluation of more than two roles by generating more roles per frame. Currently, given a set of gold triples generated from the FrameNet, each triple element has a role—for example, “Victim,” “Predator,” and “FEE.” We use a fuzzy clustering evaluation measure that operates not on triples, but instead on a set of tuples. Consider for instance a gold triple (Freddy: Predator, kidnap: FEE, kid: Victim). It will be converted to three pairs (Freddy, Predator), (kidnap, FEE), (kid, Victim). Each cluster in both C and CG is transformed into a union of all constituent typed pairs. The quality measures are finally calculated between these two sets of tuples corresponding to C and CG. Note that one can easily pull in more than two core roles by adding to this gold standard set of tuples other roles of the frame, e.g., {(forest, Location)}. In our experiments, we focused on two main roles as our contribution is related to the application of triclustering methods. However, if more advanced methods of clustering are used, yielding clusters of arbitrary modality (n-clustering), one could also use our evaluation scheme.

Statistical Testing.

Because the normalization term of the quality measures used in this experiment does not allow us to compute a contingency table, we cannot directly apply the McNemar’s test or a location test to evaluate the statistical significance of the results as we did in our synset induction experiment (Section 4.2.1). Thus, we have applied a bootstrapping approach for statistical significance evaluation as follows. Given a set of clusters C and a set of gold standard clusters CG, we bootstrap an N-sized distribution of F1-scores. On each iteration, we take a sample C′ with replacements of |C| elements from C. Then, we compute nmPU, niPU, and F1 on C′ against the gold standard clustering CG. Finally, for each pair of compared algorithms we use a two-tailed t-test (Welch, 1947) from the Apache Commons Math library31 to assess the significance of the difference in means between the corresponding bootstrap F1-score distributions. Thus, we consider the performance of one algorithm to be higher than the performance of another if both the p-value of the t-test is smaller than the significance level of 0.01 and the mean bootstrap F1-score of the first method is larger than that of the second. Because of a high computational complexity of bootstrapping (Dror et al., 2018), we had to limit the value of N to 5,000 in the frame induction experiment and to 10,000 in the verb clustering experiment.

Gold Standard Data Sets.

We constructed a gold standard set of triclusters. Each tricluster corresponds to a FrameNet frame, similarly to the one illustrated in Table 13. We extracted frame annotations from the over 150,000 sentences from FrameNet 1.7 (Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe, 1998). We used the frame, FEE, and argument labels in this data set to generate triples in the form (wordi:role1,wordj: FEE,wordk:role2), where wordi/j/k corresponds to the roles and FEE in the sentence. We omitted roles expressed by multiple words as we use dependency parses, where one node represents a single word only.

For the sentences where more than two roles are present, all possible triples were generated. For instance, consider the sentence “Two men kidnapped a soccer club employee at the train station,” where “men” has the semantic role of Perpetrator, “employee” has the semantic role of Victim, “station” has the semantic role of Place, and the word “kidnapped” is a frame-evoking lexical element (see Figure 8). In this sentence containing three semantic roles, the following triples will be generated: (men: Perpetrator, kidnap: FEE, employee: Victim), (men: Perpetrator, kidnap: FEE, station: Place), (employee: Victim, kidnap: FEE, station: Place). Sentences with less than two semantic roles were not considered. Finally, for each frame, we selected only two roles that are the most frequently co-occurring in the FrameNet annotated texts. This has left us with about 105 instances for the evaluation. For purposes of the evaluation, we operate on the intersection of triples from DepCC and FrameNet. Experimenting on the full set of DepCC triples is only possible for several methods that scale well (Watset, CW, k-means), but is prohibitively expensive for other methods (LDA-Frames, NOAC) because of the input data size combined with the complexity of these algorithms. During prototyping, we found that removing the triples containing pronouns from both the input and the gold standard data set dramatically reduces the number of instances without the change of ranks in the evaluation results. Thus, we decided to perform our experiments on the whole data set without such a filtering.

In addition to the frame induction evaluation, where subjects, objects, and verbs are evaluated together, we also used a data set of polysemous verb classes introduced by Korhonen, Krymolowski, and Marx (2003) and used by Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer (2014). Statistics of both data sets are summarized in Table 14. Note that the polysemous verb data set is rather small, whereas the FrameNet triples set is fairly large, enabling reliable comparisons.

Input Data.

In our evaluation, we use subject-verb-object triples from the DepCC data set (Panchenko et al., 2018a),32 which is a dependency-parsed version of the Common Crawl corpus, and the standard 300-dimensional Skip-Gram word embedding model trained on Google News corpus (Mikolov et al., 2013). All the evaluated algorithms are executed on the same set of triples, eliminating variations due to different corpora or pre-processing.

Table 14
Statistics of the evaluation data sets.
Data set# instances# unique# clusters
FrameNet Triples (Bauer et al. 201299,744 94,170 383 
Polysemous Verb Classes (Korhonen et al. 2003246 110 62 
Data set# instances# unique# clusters
FrameNet Triples (Bauer et al. 201299,744 94,170 383 
Polysemous Verb Classes (Korhonen et al. 2003246 110 62 

5.2.2 Parameter Tuning

We tested various hyper-parameters of each of these algorithms and report the best results overall per frame induction algorithm. We run 500 iterations of the LDA-Frames model with the default parameters (Materna, 2013). For HOSG by Cotterell et al. (2017), we trained three vector arrays (for subjects, verbs, and objects) on the 108,073 SVO triples from the FrameNet corpus, using the implementation provided by the authors.33 Training was performed with 5 negative samples, 300-dimensional vectors, and 10 epochs. We constructed an embedding of a triple by concatenating embeddings for subjects, verbs, and objects, and clustered them using k-means with the number of clusters set to 10,000 (this value provided the best performance). We tested several configurations of the NOAC method by Egurnov, Ignatov, and Mephu Nguifo (2017), varying the minimum density of the cluster: The density of 0.25 led to the best results. For our Triframes method, we tried different values of k ∈{5,10,30,100}, while the best results were obtained on k = 30 for both Triframes Watset and CW. Both Triadic baselines show the best results on k = 500.

5.2.3 Results and Discussion

We perform two experiments to evaluate our approach: (1) a frame induction experiment on the FrameNet annotated corpus by Bauer, Fürstenau, and Rambow (2012); (2) the polysemous verb clustering experiment on the data set by Korhonen, Krymolowski, and Marx (2003). The first is based on the newly introduced frame induction evaluation scheme (cf. Section 5.2.1). The second one evaluates the quality of verb clusters only on a standard data set from prior work.

Frame Induction Experiment.

In Table 15 and Figure 11, the results of the experiment are presented. Triframes based on Watset clustering outperformed the other methods on both Verb F1 and overall Frame F1. The HOSG-based clustering proved to be the most competitive baseline, yielding decent scores according to all four measures. The NOAC approach captured the frame grouping of slot fillers well but failed to establish good verb clusters. Note that NOAC and HOSG use only the graph of syntactic triples and do not rely on pre-trained word embeddings. This suggests a high complementarity of signals based on distributional similarity and global structure of the triple graph. Finally, the simpler Triadic baselines relying on hard clustering algorithms showed low performance, similar to that of LDA-Frames, justifying the more elaborate Watset method. Although we, due to computational reasons (Section 5.2.1), have statistically evaluated only Frame F1 results, we found all the results except HOSG to be statistically significant (p ≪ 0.01).

Table 15
Frame evaluation results on the triples from the FrameNet 1.7 corpus (Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe, 1998). The results are sorted by descending order of the Frame F1-score. Best results are boldfaced and statistically significant results are marked with an asterisk (*). Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
MethodVerbSubjectObjectFrame
nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1
Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop42.84 88.35 57.70 54.22 81.40 65.09 53.04 83.25 64.80 55.19 60.81 57.87* 
Triframes Watset§[CWtop, CWtop42.70 87.41 57.37 54.29 78.92 64.33 52.87 83.47 64.74 55.12 59.92 57.42* 
Triframes Watset[MCL, MCL] 52.60 70.07 60.09 55.70 74.51 63.74 54.14 78.70 64.15 60.93 52.44 56.37* 
Triframes Watset§[MCL, MCL] 55.13 69.58 61.51 55.10 76.02 63.89 54.27 78.48 64.17 60.56 52.16 56.05* 
HOSG (Cotterell et al., 201744.41 68.43 53.86 52.84 74.53 61.83 54.73 74.05 62.94 55.74 50.45 52.96 
NOAC (Egurnov et al. 201720.73 88.38 33.58 57.00 80.11 66.61 57.32 81.13 67.18 44.01 63.21 51.89* 
Triadic Spectral 49.62 24.90 33.15 50.07 41.07 45.13 50.50 41.82 45.75 52.05 28.60 36.91* 
Triadic k-Means 63.87 23.16 33.99 63.15 38.20 47.60 63.98 37.43 47.23 63.64 24.11 34.97* 
LDA-Frames (Materna, 201326.11 66.92 37.56 17.28 83.26 28.62 20.80 90.33 33.81 18.80 71.17 29.75* 
Triframes CW 7.75 6.48 7.06 3.70 14.07 5.86 51.91 76.92 61.99 21.67 26.50 23.84 
 
Singletons 18.03 20.56 17.35 81.44 15.50 26.04 
Whole 7.35 100.0 13.70 5.62 97.40 10.63 4.24 98.01 8.14 5.07 98.75 9.65 
MethodVerbSubjectObjectFrame
nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1
Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop42.84 88.35 57.70 54.22 81.40 65.09 53.04 83.25 64.80 55.19 60.81 57.87* 
Triframes Watset§[CWtop, CWtop42.70 87.41 57.37 54.29 78.92 64.33 52.87 83.47 64.74 55.12 59.92 57.42* 
Triframes Watset[MCL, MCL] 52.60 70.07 60.09 55.70 74.51 63.74 54.14 78.70 64.15 60.93 52.44 56.37* 
Triframes Watset§[MCL, MCL] 55.13 69.58 61.51 55.10 76.02 63.89 54.27 78.48 64.17 60.56 52.16 56.05* 
HOSG (Cotterell et al., 201744.41 68.43 53.86 52.84 74.53 61.83 54.73 74.05 62.94 55.74 50.45 52.96 
NOAC (Egurnov et al. 201720.73 88.38 33.58 57.00 80.11 66.61 57.32 81.13 67.18 44.01 63.21 51.89* 
Triadic Spectral 49.62 24.90 33.15 50.07 41.07 45.13 50.50 41.82 45.75 52.05 28.60 36.91* 
Triadic k-Means 63.87 23.16 33.99 63.15 38.20 47.60 63.98 37.43 47.23 63.64 24.11 34.97* 
LDA-Frames (Materna, 201326.11 66.92 37.56 17.28 83.26 28.62 20.80 90.33 33.81 18.80 71.17 29.75* 
Triframes CW 7.75 6.48 7.06 3.70 14.07 5.86 51.91 76.92 61.99 21.67 26.50 23.84 
 
Singletons 18.03 20.56 17.35 81.44 15.50 26.04 
Whole 7.35 100.0 13.70 5.62 97.40 10.63 4.24 98.01 8.14 5.07 98.75 9.65 
Figure 11 

F1-score values measured on the FrameNet Corpus (Bauer, Fürstenau, and Rambow, 2012). Each block corresponds to the top performance of the method in Table 15.

Figure 11 

F1-score values measured on the FrameNet Corpus (Bauer, Fürstenau, and Rambow, 2012). Each block corresponds to the top performance of the method in Table 15.

Although triples are intuitively less ambiguous than words, still some frequent and generic triples like (she, make, it) can act as hubs in the graph, making it difficult to split it into semantically plausible clusters. The poor results of the CW hard clustering algorithm illustrate this. Because the hubs are ambiguous (i.e., can belong to multiple clusters), the use of the Watset fuzzy clustering algorithm that splits the hubs by disambiguating them leads to the best results (see Table 15). We found that on average, Watset tends to create smaller clusters than its closest competitors, HOSG and NOAC. For instance, an average frame produced by Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] has 2.87 ± 4.60 subjects, 3.77 ± 16.31 verbs, and 3.27 ± 6.31 objects. NOAC produced on average 8.95 ± 15.05 subjects, 133.94 ± 227.60 verbs, and 15.17 ± 18.37 objects per frame. HOSG produced on average 3.00 ± 4.20 subjects, 6.49 ± 12.15 verbs, and 2.81 ± 4.89 objects per frame. We conclude that Watset was producing smaller clusters in general, which appear to be meaningful yet insufficiently coarse-grained, according to the gold standard verb data set used.

Verb Clustering Experiment.

Table 16 presents the evaluation results on the second data set for the best models identified in the first data set. The LDA-Frames yielded the best results with our approach performing comparably in terms of the F1-score. We attribute the low performance of the Triframes method based on CW clustering (Triframes CW) to its hard partitioning output, whereas the evaluation data set contains fuzzy clusters. The simplified version of Watset has statistically significantly outperformed all other approaches. Although the LDA-Frames algorithm showed a higher value of F1 than the original version of Watset in this experiment, we found that its sampled F1-score is 44.98 ± 0.04, while Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] showed 47.88 ± 0.01. Thus, we infer that our method has demonstrated non-significantly lower performance on this verb clustering task. In turn, the NOAC approach showed significantly worse results than both LDA-Frames and our approach (p ≪ 0.01). Different rankings in Tables 15 and 16 also suggest that frame induction cannot simply be treated as verb clustering and requires a separate task.

Table 16
Evaluation results on the data set of polysemous verb classes by Korhonen, Krymolowski, and Marx (2003). The results are sorted by the descending order of F1-score. Best results are boldfaced and statistically significant results are marked with an asterisk (*). Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
MethodnmPUniPUF1
Triframes Watset§[CWtop, CWtop41.21 62.82 49.77* 
LDA-Frames (Materna, 201352.60 45.84 48.98 
Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop40.05 62.09 48.69* 
NOAC (Egurnov et al. 201736.43 63.68 46.35* 
Triframes Watset[MCL, MCL] 39.26 54.92 45.78* 
Triframes Watset§[MCL, MCL] 36.31 53.81 43.36* 
Triadic Spectral 45.70 38.96 42.06 
HOSG (Cotterell et al., 201738.22 43.76 40.80* 
Triadic k-means 46.76 28.92 35.74* 
Triframes CW 18.05 12.72 14.92 
 
Whole 24.14 79.09 36.99 
Singletons 27.21 
MethodnmPUniPUF1
Triframes Watset§[CWtop, CWtop41.21 62.82 49.77* 
LDA-Frames (Materna, 201352.60 45.84 48.98 
Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop40.05 62.09 48.69* 
NOAC (Egurnov et al. 201736.43 63.68 46.35* 
Triframes Watset[MCL, MCL] 39.26 54.92 45.78* 
Triframes Watset§[MCL, MCL] 36.31 53.81 43.36* 
Triadic Spectral 45.70 38.96 42.06 
HOSG (Cotterell et al., 201738.22 43.76 40.80* 
Triadic k-means 46.76 28.92 35.74* 
Triframes CW 18.05 12.72 14.92 
 
Whole 24.14 79.09 36.99 
Singletons 27.21 
Manual Evaluation of the Induced Frames.

In addition to the experiments based on gold standard lexical resources, we also performed a manual evaluation. In particular, we assessed the quality of the frames produced by the Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] approach using n = 30 nearest neighbors for constructing a triple graph, which showed the best performance during automatic evaluation (Tables 15 and 16).

To prepare the data for a manual annotation, we sampled 100 random frames and manually annotated them with three different annotators. For the convenience of the annotators, before drawing a sample we removed pronouns and prepositions from the frame elements while keeping them containing at least two different lexical units. This is to remove rather meaningful triples, for example, (her, make, it), which are, however, present in large amounts in the FrameNet gold standard data set.

In this study, annotators were instructed to annotate a frame as “good” if its elements (SVO) generally make sense together and each element is a reasonable set of lexical units. In total, the annotators judged 63 frames out of 100 to be good with a Fleiss (1971) κ agreement of 0.816.34 Although this is a rather general definition, the high agreement rate seems to suggest that it still provides a meaningful definition shared across annotators. Figure 12 presents examples of “good” frames, that is, those which are labeled as semantically plausible by our annotators. Figure 13 shows examples of “bad” frames according to the same criteria. These frames are available for download.35

Figure 12 

Examples of “good” frames produced by the Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] method as labeled by our annotators; frame identifiers are present in the first column; pronouns and prepositions are omitted.

Figure 12 

Examples of “good” frames produced by the Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] method as labeled by our annotators; frame identifiers are present in the first column; pronouns and prepositions are omitted.

Figure 13 

Examples of “bad” frames produced by the Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] method as labeled by our annotators; frame identifiers are present in the first column, pronouns and prepositions are omitted.

Figure 13 

Examples of “bad” frames produced by the Triframes Watset[CWtop, CWtop] method as labeled by our annotators; frame identifiers are present in the first column, pronouns and prepositions are omitted.

6. Application to Unsupervised Distributional Semantic Class Induction

In this section, we investigate the applicability of our graph clustering technique in another unsupervised resource induction task. The first two experiments investigated the acquisition of two linguistic symbolic structures from two different types of graphs—namely, synsets induced from graphs of synonyms (Section 4) and semantic frames induced from graphs of distributionally related syntactic triples (Section 5). In this section, we show how Watset can be used to induce a third type of structure, namely, semantic classes from a graph of distributionally related words, also known as a distributional thesaurus (or DT) (see Lin, 1998; Biemann and Riedl, 2013). In the context of this article, semantic classes will be considered as semantically plausible groups of words or word senses that have some common semantic feature.

The following sections will provide details of this experiment. In particular, Section 6.1 presents two data sets that are used as gold standard clustering in the experiments. Section 6.2 presents the input graphs that are clustered using our approach to induce semantic structure. Finally, in Section 6.3 results of the experiments are presented and discussed comparing them to the baseline clustering algorithms.

6.1 Semantic Classes in Lexical Semantic Resources

A semantic class is a set of words that share the same semantic feature (Kozareva, Riloff, and Hovy, 2008). Depending on the definition of the notion of the semantic feature, the granularity and sizes of semantic classes may vary greatly. Examples of concrete semantic classes include sets of animals (dog, cat, …), vehicles (car, motorcycle, …), and fruit trees (apple tree, peach tree, …). In this experiment, we use a gold standard derived from a reference lexicographical database, namely, WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998). This allows us to benchmark the ability of Watset to reconstruct the semantic lexicon of such a reliable reference resource that has been widely used in NLP for many decades.

6.1.1 WordNet Supersenses

The first data set used in our experiments consists of 26 broad semantic classes, also known as supersenses in the literature (Ciaramita and Johnson, 2003): person, communication, artifact, act, group, food, cognition, possession, location, substance, state, time, attribute, object, process, tops, phenomenon, event, quantity, motive, animal, body, feeling, shape, plant, and relation.

This system of broad semantic categories was used by lexicographers who originally constructed WordNet to thematically order the synsets; Figure 14 shows the distribution of the 82,115 noun synsets from WordNet 3.1 across the supersenses. In our experiments in this section, these classes are used as gold standard clustering of word senses as recorded in WordNet. One can observe a Zipfian-like power-law (Zipf, 1949) distribution with a few clusters, such as artifact and person, accounting for a large fraction of all nouns in the resource. Overall, in this experiment we decided to focus on nouns, as the input distributional thesauri used in this experiment (as presented in Section 6.2) are most studied for modeling of noun semantics (Panchenko et al., 2016b).

Figure 14 

A summary of the noun semantic classes in WordNet supersenses (Ciaramita and Johnson, 2003).

Figure 14 

A summary of the noun semantic classes in WordNet supersenses (Ciaramita and Johnson, 2003).

The WordNet supersenses were applied later also for word sense disambiguation as a system of broad sense labels (Flekova and Gurevych, 2016). For BabelNet, there is a similar data set called BabelDomains (Camacho-Collados and Navigli, 2017) produced by automatically labeling BabelNet synsets with 32 different domains based on the topics of Wikipedia featured articles. Despite the larger size, however, BabelDomains provides only a silver standard (being semi-automatically created). We thus opt in the following to use WordNet supersenses only, because they provide instead a gold standard created by human experts.

6.1.2 Flat Cuts of the WordNet Taxonomy

The second type of semantic classes used in our study are more semantically specific and defined as subtrees of WordNet at some fixed path length of d steps from the root node. We used the following procedure to gather these semantic classes.

First, we find a set of synsets that are located an exact distance of d edges from the root node. Each such starting node (e.g., the synset plant_material.n.01) identifies one semantic class. This starting node and all its descendants (e.g., cork.n.01, coca.n.03, ethyl_alcohol.n.1, methylated_spirit.n.01, and so on, in the case of the plant material example) are included in the semantic class. Finally, we remove semantic classes that contain only one element as our goal is to create a gold standard data set for clustering. Figure 15 illustrates distribution of the number of semantic classes as a function of the path length from the root. As one may observe, the largest number of clusters is obtained for the path length d of 7. In our experiments, we use three versions of these WordNet “taxonomy cuts,” which correspond to d ∈{4,5,6}, because the cluster sizes generated at these levels are already substantially larger than those from the supersense data set while providing a complementary evaluation at different levels of granularities. Although at some levels, such as d = 2, the number of semantic classes is similar to the number of supersenses (Ciaramita and Johnson, 2003), there is no one-to-one relationship between them. As Richardson, Smeaton, and Murphy (1994) point out, this cut-based derivative resource might bias toward the concepts belonging to shallow hierarchies: the node for “horse” is 10 levels from the root, whereas the node for “cow” is 13 levels deep. However, we believe that it adds an additional perspective to our evaluation while keeping the interpretability at the same time. Examples of the extracted semantic classes are presented in Table 17.

Table 17
Examples of semantic classes extracted from WordNet hierarchy of synsets for the path length d = 5 from the root synset.
Root SynsetChild Synsets
rock.n.02 aphanite.n.01, caliche.n.02, claystone.n.01, dolomite.n.01, emery_stone.n.01, fieldstone.n.01, gravel.n.01, ballast.n.02, bank_gravel.n.01, shingle.n.02, greisen.n.01, igneous_rock.n.01, adesite.n.01, andesite.n.01, …63 more entries…, tufa.n.01 
 
toxin.n.01 animal_toxin.n.01, venom.n.01, kokoi_venom.n.01, snake_venom.n.01, anatoxin.n.01, botulin.n.01, cytotoxin.n.01, enterotoxin.n.01, nephrotoxin.n.01, endotoxin.n.01, exotoxin.n.01, …19 more entries…, ricin.n.01 
 
axis.n.01 coordinate_axis.n.01, x-axis.n.01, y-axis.n.01, z-axis.n.01, major_axis.n.01, minor_axis.n.01, optic_axis.n.01, principal_axis.n.01, semimajor_axis.n.01, semiminor_axis.n.01 
Root SynsetChild Synsets
rock.n.02 aphanite.n.01, caliche.n.02, claystone.n.01, dolomite.n.01, emery_stone.n.01, fieldstone.n.01, gravel.n.01, ballast.n.02, bank_gravel.n.01, shingle.n.02, greisen.n.01, igneous_rock.n.01, adesite.n.01, andesite.n.01, …63 more entries…, tufa.n.01 
 
toxin.n.01 animal_toxin.n.01, venom.n.01, kokoi_venom.n.01, snake_venom.n.01, anatoxin.n.01, botulin.n.01, cytotoxin.n.01, enterotoxin.n.01, nephrotoxin.n.01, endotoxin.n.01, exotoxin.n.01, …19 more entries…, ricin.n.01 
 
axis.n.01 coordinate_axis.n.01, x-axis.n.01, y-axis.n.01, z-axis.n.01, major_axis.n.01, minor_axis.n.01, optic_axis.n.01, principal_axis.n.01, semimajor_axis.n.01, semiminor_axis.n.01 
Figure 15 

Relationship between the number of semantic classes and path length from the WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998) root. We have chosen d ∈{4,5,6} for our experiments.

Figure 15 

Relationship between the number of semantic classes and path length from the WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998) root. We have chosen d ∈{4,5,6} for our experiments.

6.2 Construction of a Distributional Thesaurus

A distributional thesaurus (Lin, 1998) is an undirected graph of semantically related words, with edges such as {Python,Perl}. We base our approach on the distributional hypothesis (Firth, 1957; Turney and Pantel, 2010; Clark, 2015) to generate graphs of semantically related words for this experiment. The graphs represent k nearest neighboring of words that are semantically related to each other in a vector space. More specifically, the dimensions of the vector space represent salient syntactic dependencies of each word extracted using a dependency parser. For this, we use the JoBimText framework for computation of count-based distributional models from raw text collections (Biemann and Riedl, 2013).36 Although similar graphs could be derived also from neural distributional models, such as Word2Vec (Mikolov et al., 2013), it was shown in Riedl (2016) and Riedl and Biemann (2017) that the quality of syntactically-based graphs is generally superior.

The JoBimText framework involves several steps. First, it takes an unlabeled input text corpus and performs dependency parsing so as to extract features representing each word. Each word is represented by a bag of syntactic dependencies such as conj_and(Ruby,⋅) or prep_in(code,⋅), extracted from the dependencies of MaltParser (Nivre, Hall, and Nilsson, 2006), which are further collapsed using the tool by Ruppert et al. (2015) in the notation of Stanford Dependencies (de Marneffe, MacCartney,and Manning, 2006).

Next, semantically related words are computed for each word in the input corpus. Features of each word are weighted and ranked using the Local Mutual Information measure (Evert, 2005). Subsequently, these word representations are pruned, keeping 1,000 most salient features per word (fpw) and 1,000 most salient words per feature (wpf), where fpw and wpf are the parameters specific to the JoBimText framework. The pruning reduces computational complexity and noise. Finally, word similarities are computed as the number of common features for two words. This is, again, followed by a pruning step in which for every word, only the k of 200 most similar terms are kept. The ensemble of all of these words is the distributional thesaurus, which is used in the following experiments. Note that each word in such a thesaurus (i.e., a graph of semantically related words) is potentially ambiguous.

The last stage of the JoBimText approach performs induction of senses, although here we do not use output of this stage, but instead apply the Watset algorithm to the distributional thesaurus with ambiguous word entries. The process of computation of a distributional thesaurus using the JoBimText framework is described in greater detail in Biemann et al. (2018, Section 4.1).

As an input corpus, we use a text collection of about 9.3 billion tokens that consists of a concatenation of Wikipedia,37 ukWaC (Ferraresi et al., 2008), Gigaword (Graff and Cieri, 2003), and LCC (Richter et al., 2006) corpora. Given the large size of these corpora, the graphs are built using an implementation of the JoBimText framework in Apache Spark,38 which enables efficient distributed computation of large text collection on a distributed computational cluster.39

Figure 16 shows an example from the obtained distributional thesaurus. As in the experiments described in Sections 4 and 5, we assume that polysemous nodes serve as hubs that connect different unrelated clusters.

Figure 16 

An example of the lexical unit “java” and a part of its neighborhood in a distributional thesaurus. This polysemous word is not disambiguated, so it acts as a hub between two different senses.

Figure 16 

An example of the lexical unit “java” and a part of its neighborhood in a distributional thesaurus. This polysemous word is not disambiguated, so it acts as a hub between two different senses.

6.3 Evaluation

We cast the semantic class induction problem as a task of clustering distributionally related graphs of words and word senses, which is conceptually similar to our synset induction task in Section 4. Figure 17 shows an example of the sense graph (Section 3.3) built by Watset before running a global clustering algorithm, which induces the sense-aware semantic classes based on the distributional thesaurus example in Figure 16.

Figure 17 

An example of the sense graph built by Watset for two senses of the lexical unit “java” using CWlog for local clustering. In contrast to Figure 16, in this disambiguated distributional thesaurus the node corresponding to the lexical unit “java” is split: java11 is connected to programming languages and java17 is connected to drinks.

Figure 17 

An example of the sense graph built by Watset for two senses of the lexical unit “java” using CWlog for local clustering. In contrast to Figure 16, in this disambiguated distributional thesaurus the node corresponding to the lexical unit “java” is split: java11 is connected to programming languages and java17 is connected to drinks.

6.3.1 Experimental Set-Up

Similarly to our synset induction experiment (Section 4.2.1), we study the performance of clustering algorithms by comparing the clustering of the same input distributional thesaurus to a gold standard clustering. We used the same implementations and algorithms as all other experiments reported in this paper, such as MCL by van Dongen (2000), CW by Biemann (2006), and MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013a). We did not evaluate such algorithms as CPM (Palla et al., 2005) and ECO (Gonçalo Oliveira and Gomes, 2014) because of their poor performance shown on the synset induction task.

Input Data.

We use the distributional thesaurus as described in Section 6.2. Because the original distributional thesaurus graph has approximately 600 million edges, we pruned it by removing all the edges having the minimal weight (i.e., 0.001 in our case). Also, because of the difference in lexicons between the gold standards and the input graph, we performed additional pruning by removing all the edges connecting words missing the gold standard lexicons. As a result, we obtained four different pruned input graphs (Table 18). We performed no parameter tuning in this experiment, so we report the best-performing configuration of each method among other ones.

Table 18
Properties of the input data sets used in the semantic class induction experiment compared with the original distributional thesaurus (DT) by Biemann and Riedl (2013).
DT Pruning Method# of nodes# of edges
Unpruned (Biemann and Riedl, 20134,430,170 595,916,414 
Supersenses (Ciaramita 200337,937 6,944,731 
Path Length of d = 4 33,213 5,841,359 
Path Length of d = 5 32,048 5,478,110 
Path Length of d = 6 29,515 4,814,132 
DT Pruning Method# of nodes# of edges
Unpruned (Biemann and Riedl, 20134,430,170 595,916,414 
Supersenses (Ciaramita 200337,937 6,944,731 
Path Length of d = 4 33,213 5,841,359 
Path Length of d = 5 32,048 5,478,110 
Path Length of d = 6 29,515 4,814,132 
Gold Standard.

We use two different kinds of semantic classes for evaluation purposes. Both of the semantic class types used are based on the WordNet lexical database (Fellbaum, 1998) yet they have widely different granularities. First, we use the WordNet supersenses data set by Ciaramita and Johnson (2003). Second, we use our path-based gold standards of lengths 4, 5, and 6, as described in Section 6.1.

Quality Measure.

In the synset induction experiment (Section 4.2.1) we use the pairwise F1-score (Manandhar et al., 2010) as the performance indicator. However, because the average size of a cluster in this experiment is much higher (Table 18 and Figure 14), we found that the enumeration of 2-combinations of semantic class elements is not computationally tractable in reasonable time on relatively large data sets like the ones we use in this experiment. For example, a cluster of 10,000 elements needs to be transformed into a sufficiently large set of 12×105×(1051)5×109 pairs, which is inconvenient for processing. Therefore, we used the same quality measure as in our unsupervised lexical semantic frame induction experiment (Section 5.2.1), namely, normalized modified purity (nmPU), and normalized inverse purity (niPU), as defined by Kawahara, Peterson, and Palmer (2014).

Statistical Testing.

Because the chosen quality measure does not allow the computation of a contingency table, we use exactly the same procedure for statistical testing as in the experiment on lexical semantic frame induction (Section 5.2.1). Due to a high computational complexity of the bootstrapping statistical testing procedure (Dror et al., 2018), we limited the number of samples N to 5,000 in this experiment.

6.3.2 Results and Discussion

Comparison to Baselines.

Table 19 shows the evaluation results on the WordNet supersenses data set. We found that our approach, Watset[CWlin, CWlog], shows statistically significantly better results with respect to F1-score (p ≪ 0.01) than all the methods, apart from Simplified Watset in the same configuration. The experimental results in Table 20 obtained on different variations of our WordNet-based gold standard, as described in Section 6.1, confirm a high performance of Watset on all the evaluation data sets. Thus, results of experiments on these four types of semantic classes of greatly variable granularity (from 26 classes for the supersenses to 11,274 classes for the flat cut with d = 6) lead to similar conclusions about the advantage of the Watset approach, as compared to the baseline clustering algorithms.

Table 19
Comparison of the graph clustering methods against the WordNet supersenses data set by Ciaramita and Johnson (2003); best configurations of each method in terms of F1-scores are shown. Results are sorted by F1-score; top values of each measure are boldfaced, and statistically significant results are marked with an asterisk (*). Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
Method# clustersnmPUniPUF1
Watset[CWlin, CWlog47,054 57.20 40.52 47.44 
Watset§[CWlin, CWlog47,797 58.16 39.86 47.30* 
CWlog 108 35.03 46.17 39.84* 
MCL 368 61.34 15.31 24.50* 
MaxMax 4,050 68.48 4.15 7.82 
Method# clustersnmPUniPUF1
Watset[CWlin, CWlog47,054 57.20 40.52 47.44 
Watset§[CWlin, CWlog47,797 58.16 39.86 47.30* 
CWlog 108 35.03 46.17 39.84* 
MCL 368 61.34 15.31 24.50* 
MaxMax 4,050 68.48 4.15 7.82 
Table 20
Evaluation results on path-limited versions of WordNet by 4, 5, and 6; best configurations of each method in terms of F1-scores are shown. Results are sorted by F1-score on the d = 6 WordNet slice; top values of each measure are boldfaced. Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
Methodd = 4d = 5d = 6
nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1
Watset§[CWlin, CWtop47.43 42.63 44.90 45.26 42.67 43.93 40.20 44.37 42.18 
Watset[CWlin, CWtop47.38 42.65 44.89 44.86 43.03 43.93 40.07 44.14 42.01 
CWlin 34.09 40.98 37.22 34.92 40.65 37.57 31.84 41.89 36.18 
CWlog 29.00 44.85 35.23 29.63 44.72 35.64 26.00 46.36 33.31 
MCL 54.90 19.63 28.92 45.32 22.59 30.15 38.38 26.96 31.67 
MaxMax 59.29 6.93 12.42 52.65 10.14 17.01 47.28 13.69 21.23 
Methodd = 4d = 5d = 6
nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1nmPUniPUF1
Watset§[CWlin, CWtop47.43 42.63 44.90 45.26 42.67 43.93 40.20 44.37 42.18 
Watset[CWlin, CWtop47.38 42.65 44.89 44.86 43.03 43.93 40.07 44.14 42.01 
CWlin 34.09 40.98 37.22 34.92 40.65 37.57 31.84 41.89 36.18 
CWlog 29.00 44.85 35.23 29.63 44.72 35.64 26.00 46.36 33.31 
MCL 54.90 19.63 28.92 45.32 22.59 30.15 38.38 26.96 31.67 
MaxMax 59.29 6.93 12.42 52.65 10.14 17.01 47.28 13.69 21.23 

Table 21 shows examples of the obtained semantic classes of various sizes for the best Watset configuration on the WordNet supersenses data set. During error analysis we found two primary causes of errors: incorrectly identified edges and overly specific sense contexts.

Table 21
Sample semantic classes induced by the Watset[CWlin, CWlog] method, according to the WordNet supersenses data set by Ciaramita and Johnson (2003).
SizeSemantic Class
dye, switch-hitter, dimaggio, hitter, gwynn, three-hitter, muser 
 
13 worm, octopus, pike, anguillidae, congridae, conger, anguilliformes, eel, marine, grouper, muraenidae, moray, elver 
 
16 gothic, excelsior, roman, microgramma, stymie, dingbat, italic, century, trajan, outline, twentieth, bodoni, serif, lydian, headline, goudy 
 
20 nickel, steel, alloy, chrome, titanium, cent, farthing, cobalt, brass, denomination, fineness, paisa, copperware, dime, cupronickel, centavo, avo, threepence, coin, centime 
 
23 prochlorperazine, nicotine, tadalafil, billionth, ricin, pravastatin, multivitamin, milligram, anticoagulation, carcinogen, microgram, niacin, l-dopa, lowering, arsenic, morphine, nevirapine, caffeine, ritonavir, aspirin, neostigmine, rem, milliwatt 
 
54 integer, calculus, theta, pyx, curvature, saturation, predicate, …40 more words…, viscosity, brightness, variance, lattice, polynomial, rho, determinant 
 
369 electronics, siren, dinky, banjo, luo, shawm, shaker, helicon, rhodes, conducting, …349 more words…, narrator, paradiddle, clavichord, chord, consonance, sextet, zither, cantor, viscera, axiom 
 
1,093 egg, pinworm, forager, decidua, psittacus, chimera, coursing, silkworm, spirochete, radicle, …1073 more words…, earthworm, annelida, integument, pisum, biter, wilt, heartwood, shellfish, swarm, cryptomonad 
SizeSemantic Class
dye, switch-hitter, dimaggio, hitter, gwynn, three-hitter, muser 
 
13 worm, octopus, pike, anguillidae, congridae, conger, anguilliformes, eel, marine, grouper, muraenidae, moray, elver 
 
16 gothic, excelsior, roman, microgramma, stymie, dingbat, italic, century, trajan, outline, twentieth, bodoni, serif, lydian, headline, goudy 
 
20 nickel, steel, alloy, chrome, titanium, cent, farthing, cobalt, brass, denomination, fineness, paisa, copperware, dime, cupronickel, centavo, avo, threepence, coin, centime 
 
23 prochlorperazine, nicotine, tadalafil, billionth, ricin, pravastatin, multivitamin, milligram, anticoagulation, carcinogen, microgram, niacin, l-dopa, lowering, arsenic, morphine, nevirapine, caffeine, ritonavir, aspirin, neostigmine, rem, milliwatt 
 
54 integer, calculus, theta, pyx, curvature, saturation, predicate, …40 more words…, viscosity, brightness, variance, lattice, polynomial, rho, determinant 
 
369 electronics, siren, dinky, banjo, luo, shawm, shaker, helicon, rhodes, conducting, …349 more words…, narrator, paradiddle, clavichord, chord, consonance, sextet, zither, cantor, viscera, axiom 
 
1,093 egg, pinworm, forager, decidua, psittacus, chimera, coursing, silkworm, spirochete, radicle, …1073 more words…, earthworm, annelida, integument, pisum, biter, wilt, heartwood, shellfish, swarm, cryptomonad 

Because we performed only a minimal pruning of the input distributional thesaurus, this contains many edges with low weights that typically represent mistakenly recognized relationships between words. Such edges, when appearing between two disjoint meaningful clusters, act as hubs, which Watset puts in both clusters. For example, a sense graph in Figure 17 has a node soap18 incorrectly connected to a drinks-related node java17 instead of the node java11, which is more related to programming languages.40 Reliable distinction between “legitimate” polysemous nodes and incorrectly placed hubs is a direction for future work.

The node sense induction approach of Watset, as described in Section 2.2, takes into account only the neighborhood of the target node, which is a first-order ego network (Everett and Borgatti, 2005). As we observe throughout all the experiments in this article, Watset tends to produce more fine-grained senses than one might expect. These fine-grained senses, in turn, lead to the global clustering algorithm to include incoherent nodes to clusters as in Table 21. We believe that taking into account additional features, such as second-order ego networks, to induce coarse-grained senses could potentially improve the overall performance of our algorithm (at a higher computational cost).

We found a generally poor performance of MCL in this experiment due to its tendency to produce fine-grained clusters by isolating hubs from their neighborhoods. Although this behavior improved the results on the synset induction task (Section 4.2.3), our distributional thesaurus is a more complex resource as it expresses semantic relationships other than synonymity, so the incorrectly identified edges affect MCL as well as Watset.

Impact of Distributional Thesaurus Pruning on Ambiguity.

In order to study the effect of pruning, we performed another experiment on a DT that was pruned using a relatively high edge weight threshold of 0.01, which is 10 times larger than the minimal threshold we used in the experiment described in Section 6.3. A manual inspection of the pruned graph showed that most, if not all, nodes were either monosemeous words or proper nouns, so hard clustering algorithms should have an advantage in this scenario. Table 22 confirms that in this setup soft clustering algorithms, such as Watset and MaxMax, are clearly outperformed by hard clustering algorithms, which are more suitable for processing monosemous word graphs. Because our algorithm explicitly performs node sense induction to produce fine-grained clusters, we found that an average semantic class produced by Watset[CWtop, CWtop] has 10.77 ± 187.37 words, whereas CWlog produced semantic classes of 133.46 ± 1,317.97 words on average.

Table 22
Comparison of the graph clustering methods on the pruned DT with an edge threshold of 0.01 against the WordNet supersenses data set by Ciaramita and Johnson (2003); best configurations of each method in terms of F1-scores are shown. Results are sorted by F1-score; top values of each measure are boldfaced. Simplified Watset is denoted as Watset§.
Method# clustersnmPUniPUF1
CWlog 183 39.72 28.46 33.16 
Watset§[CWtop, CWtop3,944 57.22 20.21 29.87 
Watset[CWtop, CWtop3,954 57.38 19.91 29.56 
MCL 526 65.12 8.46 14.98 
MaxMax 3,761 72.71 2.00 3.88 
Method# clustersnmPUniPUF1
CWlog 183 39.72 28.46 33.16 
Watset§[CWtop, CWtop3,944 57.22 20.21 29.87 
Watset[CWtop, CWtop3,954 57.38 19.91 29.56 
MCL 526 65.12 8.46 14.98 
MaxMax 3,761 72.71 2.00 3.88 

To summarize, in contrast with synonymy dictionaries, whose completeness and availability are limited (Section 4.2.3), a distributional thesaurus can be constructed for any language provided with a relatively large text corpus. However, we found that they need to be carefully pruned to reduce the error rate of clustering algorithms (Panchenko et al., 2018b).

7. Conclusion

In this article, we presented Watset, a generic meta-algorithm for fuzzy graph clustering. This algorithm creates an intermediate representation of the input graph that naturally reflects the “ambiguity” of its nodes. Then, it uses hard clustering to discover clusters in this “disambiguated” intermediate graph. This enables straightforward semantic-aware grouping of relevant objects together. We refer to Watset as a meta-algorithm because it does not perform graph clustering per se. Instead, it encapsulates the existing clustering algorithms and builds a sense-aware representation of the input graph, which we call a sense graph. Although we use the sense graph in this article exclusively for clustering, we believe that it can be useful for more applications.

The experiments show that our algorithm performs fuzzy graph clustering with a high accuracy. This is empirically confirmed by successfully applying Watset to complex language processing, including tasks like unsupervised induction of synsets from a synonymy graph, semantic frames from dependency triples, as well as semantic class induction from a distributional thesaurus. In all cases, the algorithm successfully handled the ambiguity of underlying linguistic objects, yielding the state-of-the-art results in the respective tasks. Watset is computationally tractable and its local steps can easily be run in parallel.

As future work we plan to apply Watset to other types of linguistic networks to address more natural language processing tasks, such as taxonomy induction based on networks of noisy hypernyms extracted from text (Panchenko et al., 2016a). Additionally, an interesting future challenge is the development of a scalable graph clustering algorithm that can natively run in a parallel distributed manner (e.g., on a large distributed computational cluster). The currently available algorithms, such as MCL (van Dongen, 2000) and CW (Biemann, 2006), cannot be trivially implemented in such a fully distributed environment, limiting the scale of language graph they can be applied to. Another direction of future work is using Watset in downstream applications. We believe that our algorithm can successfully detect structure in a wide range of different linguistic and non-linguistic data sets, which can help in processing out-of-vocabulary items or resource-poor languages or domains without explicit supervision.

Implementation.

We offer an efficient open source multi-threaded implementation of Watset (Algorithm 1) in the Java programming language.41 It uses a thread pool to simultaneously perform local steps, such as node sense induction (lines 1–9, one word per thread) and context disambiguation (lines 11–15, one sense per thread). Our implementation includes Simplified Watset (Algorithm 2) and also features both a command-line interface and an application programming interface for integration into other graph and language processing pipelines in a generic way. Additionally, we bundle with it our own implementations of Markov Clustering (van Dongen, 2000), Chinese Whispers (Biemann, 2006), and MaxMax (Hope and Keller, 2013a) algorithms. Also, we offer an implementation of the Triframes frame induction approach42 and an implementation of the semantic class induction approach.43 The data sets produced during this study are available on Zenodo.44

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) foundation under the “JOIN-T” and “ACQuA” projects, the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) under the project no. 16-37-00354 мол_а. We also thank Andrew Krizhanovsky for providing a parsed Wiktionary, Natalia Loukachevitch for the provided RuWordNet data set, Mikhail Chernoskutov for early discussions on computational complexity of Watset, and Denis Shirgin, who actually suggested the Watset name. Furthermore, we thank Dmitry Egurnov, Dmitry Ignatov, and Dmitry Gnatyshak for help in operating the NOAC method using the multimodal clustering toolbox. We are grateful to Ryan Cotterell and Adam Poliak for a discussion and an implementation of the High-Order Skip Gram (HOSG) method. We thank Bonaventura Coppolla for discussions and preliminary work on graph-based frame induction and Andrei Kutuzov, who conducted experiments with the HOSG-based baseline related to the frame induction experiment. We thank Stefano Faralli for early work on graph-based sense disambiguation. We thank Rotem Dror for discussion of the theoretical background underpinning the statistical testing approach that we use in this article. We are grateful to Federico Nanni and Gregor Wiedemann for proofreading this article. Finally, we thank three anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on the present article.

Notes

1 

This article builds upon and expands on Ustalov, Panchenko, and Biemann (2017) and Ustalov et al. (2018).

5 

A simple graph has no loops, i.e., uv, ∀{u,v}∈ E. We use this property for context disambiguation in Section 3.2.2.

6 

For the sake of brevity, by context similarity we mean similarity between context vectors in a sparse vector space model (Salton, Wong, and Yang, 1975).

7 

Although MCL can be implemented more efficiently than O(V3), cf. van Dongen (2000, page 125), we would like to use the consistent worst case scenario notation for all the mentioned clustering algorithms.

8 

Our survey was based on Mihalcea and Radev (2011), Di Marco and Navigli (2013), and Lewis and Steedman (2013a).

24 

In YARN, an edit operation can be an addition or a removal of a synset element; an average synset in our data set contains 6.77 ± 3.54 words.

25 

We used the Wiktionary dumps of February 1, 2017.

26 

We used the YARN dumps of February 7, 2017.

29 

We used BabelNet 3.7 extracting all 3,497,327 synsets that were marked as Russian.

34 

We used the DKPro Agreement toolkit by Meyer et al. (2014) to compute the inter-annotator agreement.

35 

The examples are from the file triw2v-watset-n30-top-top-triples.txt is available in the “Downloads” section of our GitHub repository at https://github.com/uhh-lt/triframes.

40 

Strictly speaking, SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) is not a programming language, so the presence of this node in the graphs demonstrated in Figures 16 and 17 is a mistake.

References

References
Abramov
,
Nikolay
.
1999
.
Словарь русских синонимов и сходных по смыслу выражений [The Dictionary of Russian Synonyms and Semantically Related Expressions]
, 7th edition.
Русские словари [Russian Dictionaries]
,
Moscow
. In Russian.
Apidianaki
,
Marianna
and
Benoît
Sagot
.
2014
.
Data-driven synset induction and disambiguation for wordnet development
.
Language Resources and Evaluation
,
48
(
4
):
655
677
.
Baker
,
Collin F.
,
Charles J.
Fillmore
, and
John B.
Lowe
.
1998
.
The Berkeley FrameNet project
. In
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
, pages
86
90
,
Montréal
.
Bartunov
,
Sergey
,
Dmitry
Kondrashkin
,
Anton
Osokin
, and
Dmitry P.
Vetrov
.
2016
.
Breaking sticks and ambiguities with adaptive skip-gram
.
Journal of Machine Learning Research
,
51
:
130
138
.
Bauer
,
Daniel
,
Hagen
Fürstenau
, and
Owen
Rambow
.
2012
.
The dependency-parsed Framenet corpus
. In
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
3861
3867
,
Istanbul
.
Ben
Aharon
,
Roni
,
Idan Szpektor
, and
Ido
Dagan
.
2010
.
Generating entailment rules from FrameNet
. In
Proceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers
, pages
241
246
,
Uppsala
.
Biemann
,
Chris
.
2006
.
Chinese Whispers: An efficient graph clustering algorithm and its application to natural language processing problems
. In
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Graph Based Methods for Natural Language Processing
,
73
80
,
New York, NY
.
Biemann
,
Chris
.
2012
.
Structure Discovery in Natural Language
.
Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing
.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
.
Biemann
,
Chris
,
Stefano
Faralli
,
Alexander
Panchenko
, and
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
.
2018
.
A framework for enriching lexical semantic resources with distributional semantics
.
Natural Language Engineering
,
24
(
2
):
265
312
.
Biemann
,
Chris
and
Martin
Riedl
.
2013
.
Text: Now in 2D! A framework for lexical expansion with contextual similarity
.
Journal of Language Modelling
,
1
(
1
):
55
95
.
Bizer
,
Christian
,
Jens
Lehmann
,
Georgi
Kobilarov
,
Sören
Auer
,
Christian
Becker
,
Richard
Cyganiak
, and
Sebastian
Hellmann
.
2009
.
DBpedia—A crystallization point for the Web of Data
.
Journal of Web Semantics
,
7
(
3
):
154
165
.
Blei
,
David M.
,
Andrew Y.
Ng
, and
Michael I.
Jordan
.
2003
.
Latent dirichlet allocation
.
Journal of Machine Learning Research
,
3
:
993
1022
.
Blondel
,
Vincent D.
,
Jean-Loup
Guillaume
,
Renaud
Lambiotte
, and
Etienne
Lefebvre
.
2008
.
Fast unfolding of communities in large networks
.
Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment
,
2008
(
10
):
P10008
.
Boas
,
Hans C.
2009
.
Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications
.
Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs
.
Mouton de Gruyter
.
Braslavski
,
Pavel
,
Dmitry
Ustalov
,
Mukhin
Mukhin
, and
Yuri
Kiselev
.
2016
.
YARN: Spinning-in-progress
. In
Proceedings of the 8th Global WordNet Conference
, pages
58
65
,
Bucharest
.
Burchardt
,
Aljoscha
,
Marco
Pennacchiotti
,
Stefan
Thater
, and
Manfred
Pinkal
.
2009
.
Assessing the impact of frame semantics on textual entailment
.
Natural Language Engineering
,
15
(
4
):
527
550
.
Camacho-Collados
,
Jose
and
Roberto
Navigli
.
2017
.
BabelDomains: Large-scale domain labeling of lexical resources
. In
Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers
, pages
223
228
,
Valencia
.
Cecchini
,
Flavio Massimiliano
,
Martin
Riedl
,
Elisabetta
Fersini
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2018
.
A comparison of graph-based word sense induction clustering algorithms in a pseudoword evaluation framework
.
Language Resources and Evaluation
,
733
770
.
Cheung
,
Jackie C. K.
,
Hoifung
Poon
, and
Lucy
Vanderwende
.
2013
.
Probabilistic Frame Induction
. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
837
846
,
Atlanta, GA
.
Ciaramita
,
Massimiliano
and
Mark
Johnson
.
2003
.
Supersense tagging of unknown nouns in WordNet
. In
Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
168
175
,
Sapporo
.
Clark
,
Stephen
.
2015
.
Vector Space Models of Lexical Meaning
, 2nd edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cocos
,
Anne
and
Chris
Callison-Burch
.
2016
.
Clustering paraphrases by word sense
. In
Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
1463
1472
,
San Diego, CA
.
Cotterell
,
Ryan
,
Adam
Poliak
,
Benjamin Van
Durme
, and
Jason
Eisner
.
2017
.
Explaining and generalizing skip-gram through exponential family principal component analysis
. In
Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers
, pages
175
181
,
Valencia
.
Das
,
Dipanjan
,
Desai
Chen
,
André F. T.
Martins
,
Nathan
Schneider
, and
Noah A.
Smith
.
2014
.
Frame-semantic parsing
.
Computational Linguistics
.,
40
(
1
):
9
56
.
Deng
,
Jia
,
Wei
Dong
,
Richard
Socher
,
Li-Jia
Li
,
Kai
Li
, and
Li
Fei-Fei
.
2009
.
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
. In
2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
, pages
248
255
,
Miami Beach, FL
.
de Marneffe
,
Marie-Catherine
,
Bill
MacCartney
, and
Christopher D.
Manning
.
2006
.
Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses
. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
449
454
,
Genoa
.
de Saussure
,
Ferdinand
.
1916
.
Cours de linguistique generate
.
Payot
,
Paris, France
.
Di Marco
,
Antonio
and
Roberto
Navigli
.
2013
.
Clustering and diversifying Web search results with graph-based word sense induction
.
Computational Linguistics
,
39
(
3
):
709
754
.
Dikonov
,
Vyachelav G.
2013
.
Development of lexical basis for the Universal Dictionary of UNL Concepts
. In
Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue,”
volume
12(19)
, pages
212
221
,
Moscow
.
van Dongen
,
Stijn
.
2000
.
Graph Clustering by Flow Simulation
. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Utrecht
.
Dorow
,
Beate
and
Dominic
Widdows
.
2003
.
Discovering corpus-specific word senses
. In
Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 2
, pages
79
82
,
Budapest
.
Dorow
,
Beate
,
Dominic
Widdows
,
Katarina
Ling
,
Jean-Pierre
Eckmann
,
Danilo
Sergi
, and
Elisha
Moses
.
2005
.
Using curvature and Markov clustering in graphs for lexical acquisition and word sense discrimination
. In
Proceedings of the MEANING-2005 Workshop
,
Trento
.
Dror
,
Rotem
,
Gili
Baumer
,
Segev
Shlomov
, and
Roi
Reichart
.
2018
.
The hitchhiker’s guide to testing statistical significance in natural language processing
. In
Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
, pages
1383
1392
,
Melbourne
.
Egurnov
,
Dmitry
,
Dmitry
Ignatov
, and
Engelbert Mephu
Nguifo
.
2017
.
Mining triclusters of similar values in triadic real-valued contexts
. In
14th International Conference on Formal Concept Analysis - Supplementary Proceedings
, pages
31
47
,
Rennes
.
Erk
,
Katrin
and
Sebastian
Padó
.
2006
.
Shalmaneser — A toolchain for shallow semantic parsing
. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
527
532
,
Genoa
.
Everett
,
Martin
and
Stephen P.
Borgatti
.
2005
.
Ego network betweenness
.
Social Networks
,
27
(
1
):
31
38
.
Evert
,
Stefan
.
2005
.
The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations
. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Stuttgart
.
Faralli
,
Stefano
,
Alexander
Panchenko
,
Chris
Biemann
, and
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
.
2016
.
Linked disambiguated distributional semantic networks
, In
The Semantic Web – ISWC 2016: 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Proceedings, Part II
, pages
56
64
,
Kobe
.
Faruqui
,
Manaal
,
Jesse
Dodge
,
Sujay Kumar
Jauhar
,
Chris
Dyer
,
Eduard
Hovy
, and
Noah A.
Smith
.
2015
.
Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons
. In
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
1606
1615
,
Denver, CO
.
Fellbaum
,
Christiane
.
1998
.
WordNet: An Electronic Database
.
MIT Press
.
Ferraresi
,
Adriano
,
Eros
Zanchetta
,
Marco
Baroni
, and
Silvia
Bernardini
.
2008
.
Introducing and evaluating ukWaC, a very large Web-derived corpus of English
. In
Proceedings of the 4th Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-4): Can We Beat Google?
, pages
47
54
,
Marrakech
.
Fillmore
,
Charles J.
1982
. In
Frame semantics
, In
Linguistics in the Morning Calm
,
Hanshin Publishing Co.
, pages
111
137
,
Seoul
.
Firth
,
John R.
1957
.
A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955
, In
Studies in Linguistic Analysis
,
Blackwell
,
Oxford, UK
, pages
1
32
.
Fleiss
,
Joseph L.
1971
.
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters
.
Psychological Bulletin
,
76
(
5
):
378
382
.
Flekova
,
Lucie
and
Iryna
Gurevych
.
2016
.
Supersense embeddings: A unified model for supersense interpretation, prediction, and utilization
. In
Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
, pages
2029
2041
,
Berlin
.
Fortunato
,
Santo
.
2010
.
Community detection in graphs
.
Physics Reports
,
486
(
3
):
75
174
.
Gildea
,
Daniel
and
Martin
Jurafsky
.
2002
.
Automatic labeling of semantic roles
.
Computational Linguistics
,
28
(
3
):
245
288
.
Goldhahn
,
Dirk
,
Thomas
Eckart
, and
Uwe
Quasthoff
.
2012
.
Building large monolingual dictionaries at the Leipzig Corpora Collection: From 100 to 200 languages
. In
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
759
765
,
Istanbul
.
Gonçalo Oliveira
,
Hugo
and
Paolo
Gomes
.
2014
.
ECO and Onto.PT: A flexible approach for creating a Portuguese wordnet automatically
.
Language Resources and Evaluation
,
48
(
2
):
373
393
.
Gong
,
Zhiguo
,
Chan Wa
Cheang
, and
Leong Hou
U
.
2005
.
Web query expansion by WordNet
. In
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications
, pages
166
175
,
Copenhagen
.
Graff
,
David
and
Christopher
Cieri
.
2003
.
English Gigaword
. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/ldc2003t05.
Gurevych
,
Iryna
,
Judith
Eckle-Kohler
,
Silvana
Hartmann
,
Michael
Matuschek
,
Christian M.
Meyer
, and
Christian
Wirth
.
2012
.
UBY – A large-scale unified lexical-semantic resource based on LMF
. In
Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
580
590
,
Avignon
.
Hanks
,
Patrick
and
James
Pustejovsky
.
2005
.
A pattern dictionary for natural language processing
.
Revue Française de linguistique appliquée
,
10
(
2
):
63
82
.
Hartigan
,
John A.
and
M.
Anthony Wong
.
1979
.
Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm
.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics)
,
28
(
1
):
100
108
.
Hartmann
,
Silvana
,
Judith
Eckle-Kohler
, and
Iryna
Gurevych
.
2016
.
Generating Training Data for Semantic Role Labeling based on Label Transfer from Linked Lexical Resources
.
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
,
4
:
197
213
.
Hearst
,
Marti A.
1992
.
Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora
. In
Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 2
, pages
539
545
,
Nantes
.
Hope
,
David
and
Bill
Keller
.
2013a
,
MaxMax: A graph-based soft clustering algorithm applied to word sense induction
, In
Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: 14th International Conference, CICLing 2013
, pages
368
381
,
Samos
.
Hope
,
David
and
Bill
Keller
.
2013b
.
UoS: A graph-based system for graded word sense induction
. In
Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013)
, pages
689
694
,
Atlanta, GA
.
Horký
,
Vojtěch
,
Peter
Libič
,
Antonin
Steinhauser
, and
Petr
Tůma
.
2015
.
DOs and DON’Ts of conducting performance measurements in Java
. In
Proceedings of the 6th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering
, pages
337
340
,
Austin, TX
.
Hovy
,
Dirk
,
Chunliang
Zhang
,
Eduard
Hovy
, and
Anselmo
Peñas
.
2011
.
Unsupervised discovery of domain-specific knowledge from text
. In
Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
1466
1475
,
Portland, OR
.
Hovy
,
Eduard
,
Roberto
Navigli
, and
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
.
2013
.
Collaboratively built semi-structured content and artificial intelligence: The story so far
.
Artificial Intelligence
,
194
:
2
27
.
Huang
,
Eric H.
,
Richard
Socher
,
Christopher D.
Manning
, and
Andrew Y.
Ng
.
2012
.
Improving word representations via global context and multiple word prototypes
. In
Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers - Volume 1
, pages
873
882
,
Jeju Island
.
Ignatov
,
Dmitry I.
,
Dmitry V.
Gnatyshak
,
Sergei O.
Kuznetsov
, and
Boris G.
Mirkin
.
2015
.
Triadic formal concept analysis and triclustering: searching for optimal patterns
.
Machine Learning
,
101
(
1–3
):
271
302
.
Jauhar
,
Sujay Kumar
and
Eduard
Hovy
.
2017
.
Embedded semantic lexicon induction with joint global and local optimization
. In
Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2017)
, pages
209
219
,
Vancouver
.
Jurgens
,
David
and
Ioannis
Klapaftis
.
2013
.
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)
, pages
290
299
,
Atlanta, GA
.
Kallmeyer
,
Laura
,
Behrang
QasemiZadeh
, and
Jackie
Chi Kit Cheung
.
2018
.
Coarse lexical frame acquisition at the syntax–semantics interface using a latent-variable PCFG model
. In
Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics
, pages
130
141
,
New Orleans, LA
.
Kawahara
,
Daisuke
,
Daniel W.
Peterson
, and
Martha
Palmer
.
2014
.
A step-wise usage-based method for inducing polysemy-aware verb classes
. In
Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Volume 1: Long Papers
, pages
1030
1040
,
Baltimore, MD
.
Kiselev
,
Yuri
,
Sergey V.
Porshnev
, and
Mikhail
Mukhin
.
2015
.
Современное состояние электронных тезаурусов русского языка: качество, полнота и доступность [Current Status of Russian Electronic Thesauri: Quality, Completeness and Availability]
.
Programmnaya Ingeneria
,
6
:
34
40
.
In Russian
.
Korhonen
,
Anna
,
Yuval
Krymolowski
, and
Zvika
Marx
.
2003
.
Clustering polysemic subcategorization frame distributions semantically
. In
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
, pages
64
71
,
Sapporo
.
Kozareva
,
Zornitsa
,
Ellen
Riloff
, and
Eduard
Hovy
.
2008
.
Semantic class learning from the Web with hyponym pattern linkage graphs
. In
Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT
, pages
1048
1056
,
Columbus, OH
.
Krizhanovsky
,
Andrew A.
and
Alexander V.
Smirnov
.
2013
.
An approach to automated construction of a general-purpose lexical ontology based on Wiktionary
.
Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International
,
52
(
2
):
215
225
.
Kwok
,
Cody
,
Oren
Etzioni
, and
Daniel S.
Weld
.
2001
.
Scaling question answering to the Web
.
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
,
19
(
3
):
242
262
.
Lang
,
Joel
and
Mirella
Lapata
.
2010
.
Unsupervised Induction of Semantic Roles
. In
Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
939
947
,
Los Angeles, CA
.
Laparra
,
Egoitz
and
German
Rigau
.
2010
.
eXtended WordFrameNet
. In
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
1214
1219
,
Valletta
.
Lewis
,
Mike
and
Mark
Steedman
.
2013a
.
Combined distributional and logical semantics
.
Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics
,
1
:
179
192
.
Lewis
,
Mike
and
Mark
Steedman
.
2013b
.
Unsupervised induction of cross-lingual semantic relations
. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
681
692
,
Seattle, WA
.
Li
,
Jiwei
and
Dan
Jurafsky
.
2015
.
Do multi-sense embeddings improve natural language understanding?
In
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
1722
1732
,
Lisbon
.
Lin
,
Dekang
.
1998
.
An information-theoretic definition of similarity
. In
Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning
, pages
296
304
,
Madison, WI
.
Lin
,
Dekang
and
Patrick
Pantel
.
2001
.
Induction of semantic classes from natural language text
. In
Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
, pages
317
322
,
San Francisco, CA
.
Loukachevitch
,
Natalia V.
2011
.
Тезаурусы в задачах информационного поиска [Thesauri in Information Retrieval Tasks]
.
Moscow University Press
,
Moscow
. In Russian.
Loukachevitch
,
Natalia V.
,
German
Lashevich
,
Anastasia A.
Gerasimova
,
Vladimir V.
Ivanov
, and
Boris V.
Dobrov
.
2016
.
Creating Russian WordNet by conversion
. In
Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual Conference “Dialogue 2016,”
pages
405
415
,
Moscow
.
Manandhar
,
Suresh
,
Ioannis
Klapaftis
,
Dmitriy
Dligach
, and
Sameer
Pradhan
.
2010
.
SemEval-2010 Task 14: Word sense induction & disambiguation
. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation
, pages
63
68
,
Uppsala
.
Materna
,
Jiří
.
2012
. In
LDA-frames: An unsupervised approach to generating semantic frames
, In
13th International Conference, Proceedings, Part I
, pages
376
387
,
New Delhi
.
Materna
,
Jiří
.
2013
.
Parameter estimation for LDA-frames
. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
482
486
,
Atlanta, GA
.
McIntosh
,
Tara
and
James R.
Curran
.
2009
.
Reducing semantic drift with bagging and distributional similarity
. In
Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP
, pages
396
404
,
Suntec
.
McNemar
,
Quinn
.
1947
.
Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages
.
Psychometrika
,
12
(
2
):
153
157
.
Medelyan
,
Olena
.
2007
.
Computing lexical chains with graph clustering
. In
Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the ACL: Student Research Workshop
, pages
85
90
,
Prague
.
Meyer
,
Christian M.
,
Margot
Mieskes
,
Christian
Stab
, and
Iryna
Gurevych
.
2014
.
DKPro agreement: An open-source Java library for measuring inter-rater agreement
. In
Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations
, pages
105
109
,
Dublin
.
Mihalcea
,
Rada
and
Dragomir
Radev
.
2011
.
Graph-based Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
Mikolov
,
Tomas
,
Ilya
Sutskever
,
Kai
Chen
,
Greg S.
Corrado
, and
Jeffrey
Dean
.
2013
.
Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality
, In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26
, pages
3111
3119
,
Las Vegas, NV
.
Mirkin
,
Boris
.
1996
.
Clustering algorithms: A review
, In
Mathematical Classification and Clustering
.
Springer US
,
Boston, MA
, pages
109
168
.
Modi
,
Ashutosh
,
Ivan
Titov
, and
Alexandre
Klementiev
.
2012
.
Unsupervised induction of frame-semantic representations
. In
Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT Workshop on the Induction of Linguistic Structure
, pages
1
7
,
Montréal
.
Montejo-Ráez
,
Arturo
,
Eugenio
Martínez-Cámara
,
M.
Teresa Martín-Valdivia
, and
L.
Alfonso Ureña López
.
2014
.
Ranked WordNet graph for sentiment polarity classification in Twitter
.
Computer Speech & Language
,
28
(
1
):
93
107
.
Narayanan
,
Srini
,
Collin
Baker
,
Charles
Fillmore
, and
Miriam
Petruck
.
2003
.
FrameNet meets the semantic Web: Lexical semantics for the Web
. In
The Semantic Web - ISWC 2003: Second International Semantic Web Conference, Proceedings
. pages
771
787
,
Sanibel Island, FL
.
Navigli
,
Roberto
and
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
.
2012
.
BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network
.
Artificial Intelligence
,
193
:
217
250
.
Neelakantan
,
Arvind
,
Jeevan
Shankar
,
Alexandre
Passos
, and
Andrew
McCallum
.
2014
.
Efficient non-parametric estimation of multiple embeddings per word in vector space
. In
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
1059
1069
,
Doha
.
Newman
,
Mark E. J.
and
Michelle
Girvan
.
2004
.
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
.
Physical Review E
,
69
(
2
):
026113
.
Ng
,
Vincent
.
2007
.
Semantic class induction and coreference resolution
. In
Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics
, pages
536
543
,
Prague
.
Nieto Piña
,
Luis
and
Richard
Johansson
.
2015
.
A simple and efficient method to generate word sense representations
. In
Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing
, pages
465
472
,
Hissar
.
Nivre
,
Joakim
,
Johan
Hall
, and
Jens
Nilsson
.
2006
.
MaltParser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing
. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
2216
2219
,
Genoa
.
O’Connor
,
Brendan
.
2013
.
Learning frames from text with an unsupervised latent variable model
. Technical report,
Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
.
Padó
,
Sebastian
and
Mirella
Lapata
.
2009
.
Cross-lingual annotation projection of semantic roles
.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
,
36
(
1
):
307
340
.
Palla
,
Gergely
,
Imre
Derenyi
,
Illes
Farkas
, and
Tamas
Vicsek
.
2005
.
Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society
.
Nature
,
435
:
814
818
.
Panchenko
,
Alexander
,
Stefano
Faralli
,
Eugen
Ruppert
,
Steffen
Remus
,
Hubert
Naets
,
Cedrick
Fairon
,
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2016a
.
TAXI at SemEval-2016 Task 13: A taxonomy induction method based on lexico-syntactic patterns, substrings and focused crawling
. In
Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation
, pages
1320
1327
,
San Diego, CA
.
Panchenko
,
Alexander
,
Eugen
Ruppert
,
Stefano
Faralli
,
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2018a
.
Building a Web-scale dependency-parsed corpus from common crawl
. In
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
1816
1823
,
Miyazaki
.
Panchenko
,
Alexander
,
Johannes
Simon
,
Martin
Riedl
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2016b
.
Noun sense induction and disambiguation using graph-based distributional semantics
. In
Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing
, pages
192
202
,
Bochum
.
Panchenko
,
Alexander
,
Dmitry
Ustalov
,
Nikolay
Arefyev
,
Denis
Paperno
,
Natalia
Konstantinova
,
Natalia
Loukachevitch
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2017
.
Human and machine judgements for Russian semantic relatedness
. In
Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts: 5th International Conference, Revised Selected Papers
, pages
221
235
,
Yekaterinburg
.
Panchenko
,
Alexander
,
Dmitry
Ustalov
,
Stefano
Faralli
,
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2018b
.
Improving hypernymy extraction with distributional semantic classes
. In
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
1541
1551
,
Miyazaki
.
Pang
,
Bo
and
Lillian
Lee
.
2004
.
A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts
. In
Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Main Volume
, pages
271
278
,
Barcelona
.
Pantel
,
Patrick
,
Eric
Crestan
,
Arkady
Borkovsky
,
Ana-Maria
Popescu
, and
Vishnu
Vyas
.
2009
.
Web-scale distributional similarity and entity set expansion
. In
Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
938
947
,
Singapore
.
Pantel
,
Patrick
and
Dekang
Lin
.
2002
.
Discovering word senses from text
. In
Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
, pages
613
619
,
Edmonton
.
Pantel
,
Patrick
and
Deepak
Ravichandran
.
2004
.
Automatically labeling semantic classes
. In
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
321
328
,
Boston, MA
.
Pavlick
,
Ellie
,
Pushpendre
Rastogi
,
Juri
Ganitkevitch
,
Benjamin Van
Durme
, and
Chris
Callison-Burch
.
2015
.
PPDB 2.0: Better paraphrase ranking, fine-grained entailment relations, word embeddings, and style classification
. In
Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers)
, pages
425
430
,
Beijing
.
Pedersen
,
Ted
and
Rebecca
Bruce
.
1997
.
Distinguishing word senses in untagged text
. In
Proceedings of the Second Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
197
207
,
Providence, RI
.
Pelevina
,
Maria
,
Nikolay
Arefiev
,
Chris
Biemann
, and
Alexander
Panchenko
.
2016
.
Making sense of word embeddings
. In
Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP
, pages
174
183
,
Berlin
.
Pennington
,
Jeffrey
,
Richard
Socher
, and
Christopher
Manning
.
2014
.
GloVe: Global vectors for word representation
. In
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
1532
1543
,
Doha
.
Peters
,
Matthew
,
Mark
Neumann
,
Mohit
Iyyer
,
Matt
Gardner
,
Christopher
Clark
,
Kenton
Lee
, and
Luke
Zettlemoyer
.
2018
.
Deep contextualized word representations
. In
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)
, pages
2227
2237
,
New Orleans, LA
.
Qadir
,
Ashequl
,
Pablo N.
Mendes
,
Daniel
Gruhl
, and
Neal
Lewis
.
2015
.
Semantic lexicon induction from Twitter with pattern relatedness and flexible term length
. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-15
, pages
2432
2439
,
Austin, TX
.
Reisinger
,
Joseph
and
Raymond J.
Mooney
.
2010
.
Multi-prototype vector-space models of word meaning
. In
Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
109
117
,
Los Angeles, CA
.
Richardson
,
Ray
,
Alan F.
Smeaton
, and
John
Murphy
.
1994
.
Using WordNet as a knowledge base for measuring semantic similarity between words
.
Working Paper CA-1294, School of Computer Applications, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
.
Richter
,
Matthias
,
Uwe
Quasthoff
,
Erla
Hallsteinsdóttir
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2006
.
Exploiting the Leipzig corpora collection
. In
Proceedings of 5th Slovenian and 1st International Language Technologies Conference
,
Riedl
,
Martin
.
2016
.
Unsupervised Methods for Learning and Using Semantics of Natural Language
. Ph.D. thesis,
Technische Universität Darmstadt
.
Riedl
,
Martin
and
Chris
Biemann
.
2017
.
There’s no ‘count or predict’ but task-based selection for distributional models
. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics — Short papers
, pages
264
272
,
Montpellier
.
Ritter
,
Alan
,
Mausam
, and
Oren
Etzioni
.
2010
.
A latent Dirichlet allocation method for selectional preferences
. In
Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
424
434
,
Uppsala
.
Rong
,
Xin
,
Zhe
Chen
,
Qiaozhu
Mei
, and
Eytan
Adar
.
2016
.
EgoSet: Exploiting word Ego-networks and user-generated ontology for multifaceted set expansion
. In
Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
, pages
645
654
,
San Francisco, CA
.
Ruppert
,
Eugen
,
Jonas
Klesy
,
Martin
Riedl
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2015
.
Rule-based dependency parse collapsing and propagation for German and English
. In
Proceedings of the International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology
, pages
58
66
,
Duisburg and Essen
.
Salton
,
Gerard
,
Andrew
Wong
, and
Chungshu S.
Yang
.
1975
.
A vector space model for automatic indexing
.
Communications of the ACM
,
18
(
11
):
613
620
.
Sarmento
,
Luis
,
Valentin
Jijkuon
,
Maarten
de Rijke
, and
Eugenio
Oliveira
.
2007
.
“More like these”: Growing entity classes from seeds
. In
Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
, pages
959
962
,
Lisbon
.
Schaeffer
,
Satu Elisa
.
2007
.
Graph clustering
.
Computer Science Review
,
1
(
1
):
27
64
.
Schenk
,
Niko
and
Christian
Chiarcos
.
2016
.
Unsupervised learning of prototypical fillers for implicit semantic role labeling
. In
Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
1473
1479
,
San Diego, CA
.
Schütze
,
Hinrich
.
1998
.
Automatic word sense discrimination
.
Computational Linguistics
,
24
(
1
):
97
123
.
Seabold
,
Skipper
and
Josef
Perktold
.
2010
.
Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python
. In
Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference
, pages
57
61
,
Austin, TX
.
Shen
,
Dan
and
Mirella
Lapata
.
2007
.
Using semantic roles to improve question answering
. In
Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning
, pages
12
21
,
Prague
.
Shen
,
Jiaming
,
Zeqiu
Wu
,
Dongming
Lei
,
Jingbo
Shang
,
Xiang
Ren
, and
Jiawei
Han
.
2017
.
SetExpan: Corpus-based set expansion via context feature selection and rank ensemble
. In
Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Proceedings, Part I
, pages
288
304
,
Skopje
.
Shi
,
Jianbo
and
Jitendra
Malik
.
2000
.
Normalized cuts and image segmentation
.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
,
22
(
8
):
888
905
.
Steyvers
,
Mark
and
Joshua B.
Tenenbaum
.
2005
.
The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth
.
Cognitive Science
,
29
(
1
):
41
78
.
Sundheim
,
Beth M.
1992
.
Overview of the fourth message understanding evaluation and conference
. In
Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Message Understanding
, pages
3
21
,
McLean, VA
.
Talukdar
,
Partha Pratim
,
Joseph
Reisinger
,
Marius
Pasca
,
Deepak
Ravichandran
,
Rahul
Bhagat
, and
Fernando
Pereira
.
2008
.
Weakly-supervised acquisition of labeled class instances using graph random walks
. In
Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
582
590
,
Honolulu, HI
.
Thelen
,
Michael
and
Ellen
Riloff
.
2002
.
A bootstrapping method for learning semantic lexicons using extraction pattern contexts
. In
Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
, pages
214
221
,
Pennsylvania, PA
.
Thomason
,
Jesse
and
Raymond J.
Mooney
.
2017
.
Multi-modal word synset induction
. In
Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, pages
4116
4122
,
Melbourne
.
Tian
,
Fei
,
Hanjun
Dai
,
Jiang
Bian
,
Bin
Gao
,
Rui
Zhang
,
Enhong
Chen
, and
Tie-Yan
Liu
.
2014
.
A probabilistic model for learning multi-prototype word embeddings
. In
Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers
, pages
151
160
,
Dublin
.
Titov
,
Ivan
and
Alexandre
Klementiev
.
2011
.
A Bayesian model for unsupervised semantic parsing
. In
Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
, pages
1445
1455
,
Portland, OR
.
Titov
,
Ivan
and
Alexandre
Klementiev
.
2012
.
A Bayesian approach to unsupervised semantic role induction
. In
Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
, pages
12
22
,
Avignon
.
Tonelli
,
Sara
and
Daniele
Pighin
.
2009
.
New features for FrameNet - WordNet mapping
. In
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning
, pages
219
227
,
Boulder, CO
.
Turney
,
Peter D.
and
Patrick
Pantel
.
2010
.
From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics
.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
,
37
:
141
188
.
Ustalov
,
Dmitry
,
Mikhail
Chernoskutov
,
Chris
Biemann
, and
Alexander
Panchenko
.
2017
.
Fighting with the sparsity of the synonymy dictionaries for automatic synset induction
. In
Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts: 6th International Conference, Revised Selected Papers
, pages
94
105
,
Moscow
.
Ustalov
,
Dmitry
and
Alexander
Panchenko
.
2017
.
A tool for effective extraction of synsets and semantic relations from BabelNet
. In
Proceedings of the 2017 Siberian Symposium on Data Science and Engineering
, pages
10
13
,
Novosibirsk
.
Ustalov
,
Dmitry
,
Alexander
Panchenko
, and
Chris
Biemann
.
2017
.
Watset: Automatic induction of synsets from a graph of synonyms
. In
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
, pages
1579
1590
,
Vancouver
.
Ustalov
,
Dmitry
,
Alexander
Panchenko
,
Andrei
Kutuzov
,
Chris
Biemann
, and
Simone Paolo
Ponzetto
.
2018
.
Unsupervised semantic frame induction using triclustering
. In
Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
, pages
55
62
,
Melbourne
.
Véronis
,
Jean
.
2004
.
HyperLex: Lexical cartography for information retrieval
.
Computer Speech & Language
,
18
(
3
):
223
252
.
Wang
,
Richard C.
and
William W.
Cohen
.
2008
.
Iterative set expansion of named entities using the Web
. In
2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining
, pages
1091
1096
,
Pisa
.
Welch
,
Bernard Lewis
.
1947
.
The generalization of ‘Student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved
.
Biometrika
,
34
(
1–2
):
28
35
.
Widdows
,
Dominic
and
Beate
Dorow
.
2002
.
A graph model for unsupervised lexical acquisition
. In
Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
, pages
1
7
,
Taipei
.
Xie
,
Boyi
,
Rebecca J.
Passonneau
,
Leon
Wu
, and
Germán G.
Creamer
.
2013
.
Semantic frames to predict stock price movement
. In
Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
, pages
873
883
,
Sofia
.
Zesch
,
Torsten
,
Christof
Müller
, and
Iryna
Gurevych
.
2008
.
Extracting lexical semantic knowledge from Wikipedia and Wiktionary
. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
, pages
1646
1652
,
Marrakech
.
Zhao
,
Lizhuang
and
Mohammed J.
Zaki
.
2005
.
TRICLUSTER: An effective algorithm for mining coherent clusters in 3d microarray Data
. In
Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
, pages
694
705
,
New York, NY
.
Zhou
,
Guangyou
,
Yang
Liu
,
Fang
Liu
,
Daojian
Zeng
, and
Jun
Zhao
.
2013
.
Improving question retrieval in community question answering using world knowledge
. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, pages
2239
2245
,
Beijing
.
Zipf
,
George K.
1949
.
Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort
.
Addison-Wesley
,
Menlo Park, CA
.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits you to copy and redistribute in any medium or format, for non-commercial use only, provided that the original work is not remixed, transformed, or built upon, and that appropriate credit to the original source is given. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.