3 ms·
I think this paper is interesting... The section on sarcasm is interesting. They got good results distinguishing apple the noun (which is similar to apples, p
by andrewtbham 11y ago
I think this paper is interesting... The section on sarcasm is interesting. They got good results distinguishing apple the noun (which is similar to apples, pear, peach, blueberry) from Apple the proper noun (which is similar to Microsoft, iphone, ipad, samsung.)
While they got good results telling bank the noun from bank the verb... they didn't differentiate bank the noun (financial ) from bank the noun (the side of a river).
Or even more complicated... look at all the uses of bank on word net.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bank http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bank
I'm not sure I can grasp the implications of disambiguating some words, but not others. For some applications it might make sense but... trying to disambiguate words or leave them as single vectors is still, in my mind, an open research question.
- williamtrask 11y agoGreat point. In my opinion, for improving the quality of syntactic tasks such as POS / dependency parse, the difference between disambiguating and not disambiguating riverbank and financial bank will be minimal. However, for semantic tasks (perhaps NER, information extraction, question answering) the difference would be more profound. This paper is primarily focused on a much more efficient method to do the former.