3 ms·
It seems obvious to me that disambiguating _correctly_ would necessarily improve performance. As an extreme example, homonyms like bark (the verb) and bark (on
by kevinwang 9y ago
It seems obvious to me that disambiguating _correctly_ would necessarily improve performance. As an extreme example, homonyms like bark (the verb) and bark (on a tree) have nothing to do with each other, and ideally would be considered two different words.
- aglionby 9y agoYeah I would agree. I've struggled to find much work that looks at this at a large scale though!
- nicklovescode 9y agoAllenNLP’s recent work ELMo is very good at this task. Check it out!
- aglionby 9y agoMuch appreciated! Will have a look.
- taeric 9y agoI imagine contranyms would be among the most difficult here. Would be fun to see how these vectors stack up with those.
- kevinwang 9y agoWell, antonyms are usually right next to each other in word embedding spaces anyways. (since the context they're used in is often hard to tell apart)
- taeric 9y agoContranyms would be identical in the embedding space, no? I'm actually intrigued that nobody has made a text processor named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Bedelia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Bedelia yet. :)