text: Identification of the most frequent sense of a polysemous word is an important semantic task. We introduce two concepts that can benefit MFS detection: companions, which are the most frequently co-occurring words, and the most frequent translation in a bitext. We present two novel methods that incorporate these new concepts, and show that they advance the state of the art on MFS detection.
  @cite_39: 
  @cite_23: In word sense disambiguation (WSD), the heuristic of choosing the most common sense is extremely powerful because the distribution of the senses of a word is often skewed. The first (or predominant) sense heuristic assumes the availability of handtagged data. Whilst there are hand-tagged corpora available for some languages, these are relatively small in size and many word forms either do not occur, or occur infrequently. In this paper we investigate the performance of an unsupervised first sense heuristic where predominant senses are acquired automatically from raw text. We evaluate on both the SENSEVAL-2 and SENSEVAL-3 English allwords data. For accurate WSD the first sense heuristic should be used only as a back-off, where the evidence from the context is not strong enough. In this paper however, we examine the performance of the automatically acquired first sense in isolation since it turned out that the first sense taken from SemCor outperformed many systems in SENSEVAL-2.
  @cite_5: There has been a great deal of recent research into word sense disambiguation, particularly since the inception of the Senseval evaluation exercises. Because a word often has more than one meaning, resolving word sense ambiguity could benefit applications that need some level of semantic interpretation of language input. A major problem is that the accuracy of word sense disambiguation systems is strongly dependent on the quantity of manually sense-tagged data available, and even the best systems, when tagging every word token in a document, perform little better than a simple heuristic that guesses the first, or predominant, sense of a word in all contexts. The success of this heuristic is due to the skewed nature of word sense distributions. Data for the heuristic can come from either dictionaries or a sample of sense-tagged data. However, there is a limited supply of the latter, and the sense distributions and predominant sense of a word can depend on the domain or source of a document. (The first sense of “star” for example would be different in the popular press and scientific journals). In this article, we expand on a previously proposed method for determining the predominant sense of a word automatically from raw text. We look at a number of different data sources and parameterizations of the method, using evaluation results and error analyses to identify where the method performs well and also where it does not. In particular, we find that the method does not work as well for verbs and adverbs as nouns and adjectives, but produces more accurate predominant sense information than the widely used SemCor corpus for nouns with low coverage in that corpus. We further show that the method is able to adapt successfully to domains when using domain specific corpora as input and where the input can either be hand-labeled for domain or automatically classified.
  @cite_20: In word sense disambiguation (WSD), the heuristic of choosing the most common sense is extremely powerful because the distribution of the senses of a word is often skewed. The problem with using the predominant, or first sense heuristic, aside from the fact that it does not take surrounding context into account, is that it assumes some quantity of hand-tagged data. Whilst there are a few hand-tagged corpora available for some languages, one would expect the frequency distribution of the senses of words, particularly topical words, to depend on the genre and domain of the text under consideration. We present work on the use of a thesaurus acquired from raw textual corpora and the WordNet similarity package to find predominant noun senses automatically. The acquired predominant senses give a precision of 64 on the nouns of the SENSEVAL-2 English all-words task. This is a very promising result given that our method does not require any hand-tagged text, such as SemCor. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our method discovers appropriate predominant senses for words from two domain-specific corpora.
  @cite_12: In this paper we show that an unsupervised method for ranking word senses automatically can be used to identify infrequently occurring senses. We demonstrate this using a ranking of noun senses derived from the BNC and evaluating on the sense-tagged text available in both SemCor and the SENSEVAL-2 English all-words task. We show that the method does well at identifying senses that do not occur in a corpus, and that those that are erroneously filtered but do occur typically have a lower frequency than the other senses. This method should be useful for word sense disambiguation systems, allowing effort to be concentrated on more frequent senses; it may also be useful for other tasks such as lexical acquisition. Whilst the results on balanced corpora are promising, our chief motivation for the method is for application to domain specific text. For text within a particular domain many senses from a generic inventory will be rare, and possibly redundant. Since a large domain specific corpus of sense annotated data is not available, we evaluate our method on domain-specific corpora and demonstrate that sense types identified for removal are predominantly senses from outside the domain.
summary: @cite_20 present a method for based on a thesaurus constructed from a parsed corpus. This thesaurus is used to induce a word similarity function, which they use to assess the prevalence of each sense of a given target word. They perform both intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations; we compare to their reported results to the extent their experimental setup allows. This method was subsequently applied to a WSD shared task @cite_23 , and to the identification of infrequent word senses @cite_12 . An extended analysis of the method was presented by @cite_5 . @cite_39 adapt this method to Japanese using only the glosses of words, excluding the use of semantic networks such as WordNet.