Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  1. Nagy T., I.: Detecting multiword expressions and named entities in natural language texts (2014) 0.04
    0.03645768 = product of:
      0.07291536 = sum of:
        0.07291536 = product of:
          0.14583072 = sum of:
            0.14583072 = weight(_text_:light in 1536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14583072 = score(doc=1536,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.49938247 = fieldWeight in 1536, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1536)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Multiword expressions (MWEs) are lexical items that can be decomposed into single words and display lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and/or statistical idiosyncrasy (Sag et al., 2002; Kim, 2008; Calzolari et al., 2002). The proper treatment of multiword expressions such as rock 'n' roll and make a decision is essential for many natural language processing (NLP) applications like information extraction and retrieval, terminology extraction and machine translation, and it is important to identify multiword expressions in context. For example, in machine translation we must know that MWEs form one semantic unit, hence their parts should not be translated separately. For this, multiword expressions should be identified first in the text to be translated. The chief aim of this thesis is to develop machine learning-based approaches for the automatic detection of different types of multiword expressions in English and Hungarian natural language texts. In our investigations, we pay attention to the characteristics of different types of multiword expressions such as nominal compounds, multiword named entities and light verb constructions, and we apply novel methods to identify MWEs in raw texts. In the thesis it will be demonstrated that nominal compounds and multiword amed entities may require a similar approach for their automatic detection as they behave in the same way from a linguistic point of view. Furthermore, it will be shown that the automatic detection of light verb constructions can be carried out using two effective machine learning-based approaches.
    In this thesis, we focused on the automatic detection of multiword expressions in natural language texts. On the basis of the main contributions, we can argue that: - Supervised machine learning methods can be successfully applied for the automatic detection of different types of multiword expressions in natural language texts. - Machine learning-based multiword expression detection can be successfully carried out for English as well as for Hungarian. - Our supervised machine learning-based model was successfully applied to the automatic detection of nominal compounds from English raw texts. - We developed a Wikipedia-based dictionary labeling method to automatically detect English nominal compounds. - A prior knowledge of nominal compounds can enhance Named Entity Recognition, while previously identified named entities can assist the nominal compound identification process. - The machine learning-based method can also provide acceptable results when it was trained on an automatically generated silver standard corpus. - As named entities form one semantic unit and may consist of more than one word and function as a noun, we can treat them in a similar way to nominal compounds. - Our sequence labelling-based tool can be successfully applied for identifying verbal light verb constructions in two typologically different languages, namely English and Hungarian. - Domain adaptation techniques may help diminish the distance between domains in the automatic detection of light verb constructions. - Our syntax-based method can be successfully applied for the full-coverage identification of light verb constructions. As a first step, a data-driven candidate extraction method can be utilized. After, a machine learning approach that makes use of an extended and rich feature set selects LVCs among extracted candidates. - When a precise syntactic parser is available for the actual domain, the full-coverage identification can be performed better. In other cases, the usage of the sequence labeling method is recommended.
  2. Rayson, P.; Piao, S.; Sharoff, S.; Evert, S.; Moiron, B.V.: Multiword expressions : hard going or plain sailing? (2015) 0.03
    0.03260874 = product of:
      0.06521748 = sum of:
        0.06521748 = product of:
          0.13043496 = sum of:
            0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13043496 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Over the past two decades or so, Multi-Word Expressions (MWEs; also called Multi-word Units) have been an increasingly important concern for Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing (NLP). The term MWE has been used to refer to various types of linguistic units and expressions, including idioms, noun compounds, phrasal verbs, light verbs and other habitual collocations. However, while there is no universally agreed definition for MWE as yet, most researchers use the term to refer to those frequently occurring phrasal units which are subject to certain level of semantic opaqueness, or non-compositionality. Non-compositional MWEs pose tough challenges for automatic analysis because their interpretation cannot be achieved by directly combining the semantics of their constituents, thereby causing the "pain in the neck of NLP".
  3. Lezius, W.: Morphy - Morphologie und Tagging für das Deutsche (2013) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=1490,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1490, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1490)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2015 9:30:24
  4. Huo, W.: Automatic multi-word term extraction and its application to Web-page summarization (2012) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 1.2013 19:22:47
  5. Lawrie, D.; Mayfield, J.; McNamee, P.; Oard, P.W.: Cross-language person-entity linking from 20 languages (2015) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=1848,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1848, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1848)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The goal of entity linking is to associate references to an entity that is found in unstructured natural language content to an authoritative inventory of known entities. This article describes the construction of 6 test collections for cross-language person-entity linking that together span 22 languages. Fully automated components were used together with 2 crowdsourced validation stages to affordably generate ground-truth annotations with an accuracy comparable to that of a completely manual process. The resulting test collections each contain between 642 (Arabic) and 2,361 (Romanian) person references in non-English texts for which the correct resolution in English Wikipedia is known, plus a similar number of references for which no correct resolution into English Wikipedia is believed to exist. Fully automated cross-language person-name linking experiments with 20 non-English languages yielded a resolution accuracy of between 0.84 (Serbian) and 0.98 (Romanian), which compares favorably with previously reported cross-language entity linking results for Spanish.
  6. Fóris, A.: Network theory and terminology (2013) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=1365,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1365, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    2. 9.2014 21:22:48
  7. Rötzer, F.: KI-Programm besser als Menschen im Verständnis natürlicher Sprache (2018) 0.01
    0.0068507106 = product of:
      0.013701421 = sum of:
        0.013701421 = product of:
          0.027402842 = sum of:
            0.027402842 = weight(_text_:22 in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027402842 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:32:44
  8. Deventer, J.P. van; Kruger, C.J.; Johnson, R.D.: Delineating knowledge management through lexical analysis : a retrospective (2015) 0.01
    0.0059943716 = product of:
      0.011988743 = sum of:
        0.011988743 = product of:
          0.023977486 = sum of:
            0.023977486 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023977486 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22