A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant

Semantic Trees and N-Cliques Model

Yoan Gutiérrez1, Sonia Vázquez2, and Andrés Montoyo2

1
Department of Informatics
University of Matanzas, Cuba
2
Research Group of Language Processing and Information Systems
Department of Software and Computing Systems
University of Alicante, Spain
{yoan.gutierrez}@umcc.cu, @dlsi.ua.es,
{svazquez,montoyo}@dlsi.ua.es

Abstract. In this paper we propose a new graph-based approach to solve

semantic ambiguity using a semantic net based on WordNet. Our proposal uses
an adaptation of the Clique Partitioning Technique to extract sets of strongly
related senses. For that, an initial graph is obtained from senses of WordNet
combined with the information of several semantic categories from different
resources: WordNet Domains, SUMO and WordNet Affect. In order to obtain
the most relevant concepts in a sentence we use the Relevant Semantic Trees
method. The evaluation of the results has been conducted using the test data set
of Senseval-2 obtaining promising results.

Keywords: Word Sense Disambiguation, Graph-based, N-Cliques, WordNet.

1 Introduction and Motivation

In Natural Language Processing (NLP) one of the main problems is the ambiguity of
words. This problem affects different tasks such as: Information Retrieval,
Information Extraction, Question Answering, etc. In order to deal with this problem
an intermediate task called Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) has been developed.
WSD consists on determining the correct meanings of words according to different
contexts. In fact, WSD has been demonstrated to be very useful to improve several
NLP tasks such as Parsing, Machine Translation, Information Retrieval or Question
Answering.
In WSD we find different kind of systems that can be classified into three main
groups [15, 22]: supervised, unsupervised and knowledge-based. The first ones need
lots of hand-tagged data in order to achieve enough information for training different
types of classifiers. Unsupervised systems use external information from raw
unannotated corpora and knowledge-based systems rely on dictionaries, thesauri and
lexical knowledge databases without using any corpus evidence. Compared with
unsupervised and knowledge-based systems, supervised systems historically have
achieved better results in WSD [22]. However, recent results show that enriching

A. Gelbukh (Ed.): CICLing 2012, Part I, LNCS 7181, pp. 225–237, 2012.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012
226 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

unsupervised and knowledge-based systems with new knowledge sources performs

better than supervised systems [1, 25]. Related to knowledge-based systems, different
approaches have been addressed to graph-based methods obtaining promising results.
We can mention those approaches using structural interconnections such as Structural
Semantic Interconnections (SSI) [23] which create structural specifications of the
possible senses for each word in a context. Another approach is the proposal of
exploring the integration of WordNet 1 (WN) [7] and FrameNet [16] and among
others we can mention those using Page-Rank such as Agirre and Soroa [1], Redy et.
Al. [26], Soroa et. Al. [28], and Sinha and Mihalcea [27] that used the internal
interconnections of Lexical knowledge Base (LKB) from WordNet.
In this paper we present a new graph-based approach for the resolution of semantic
ambiguity of words. It takes into account the internal semantic relations of WN and
the relations that exist among the synsets of WN and the labels of SUMO2 (Suggested
Upper Merged Ontology), WordNet Domains3 (WND) and WordNet Affect4 (WNA).
Our graph-based proposal is an adaptation of the N-Cliques model [17] applying the
Clique Partitioning Technique [29] to distance in order to obtain N-Cliques. Each
N-Clique will contain relevant information used to extract the correct sense of each
word. In order to build the initial graph our proposal combines the information
provided by the synsets of WN with the ten most relevant concepts obtained from
WN, SUMO, WND and WNA, using the Relevant Semantic Trees method (RST).
The organization of this paper is as follows: Section 2 describes the resources used.
In Section 3 we present our algorithms and methods. Section 4 shows the integration
of the resources, algorithms and methods. Section 5 shows the evaluation and a
comparative study of the results. Finally, conclusions and further works are detailed.

2 ISR-WN Resource
In this section we describe a semantic network that links different resources: WN,
WND, SUMO and WNA. This resource is called ISR-WN [9, 11]. The aim of
developing this resource is that we need to extract and relate information from
different lexical resources to obtain a multi-conceptual network.
In order to find the right environment to apply our graph-based approach we have
analyzed several resources that align different kind of semantic information. Many
efforts have been focused on the idea of building semantic networks like
MultiWordNet (MWN) [24], EuroWordNet (EWN) [6], Multilingual Central
Repository (MCR) [2], etc. For example: MWN is able to align the Italian and
English lexical dictionaries conceptualized by Domain labels. The MultiWordNet
browser also allows to access to the Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Romanian and
Latin WordNets, but these wordnets are not part of the MultiWordNet distribution.
EWN was developed to align Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German, French, Czech,
English and other lexical dictionaries. MCR integrates into the EWN framework an

1
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/
2
http://www.ontologyportal.org
3
http://wndomains.fbk.eu
4
http://wndomains.fbk.eu/wnaffect.html
 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 227

upgraded version of the EWN Top Concept ontology, the MWN Domains, SUMO
and hundreds of thousands of new semantic relations and properties automatically
acquired from corpora.
ISR-WN, takes into account different kind of labels linked to WN: Level Upper
Concepts (SUMO), Domains and Emotion labels. In this work our purpose is to use a
semantic network which links different semantic resources aligned to WN. After
several tests we decided to apply ISR-WN. Although each resource presented above
provides different semantic relations, ISR-WN has the highest quantity of semantic
dimensions aligned, so it is a suitable resource to run our algorithm. Using ISR-WN
we are able to extract important information from the interrelations of four
ontological resources: WN, WND, WNA and SUMO. ISR-WN resource is based on
WN1.6 or WN2.0 versions. In the last updated version, Semantic Classes and
SentiWordNet were also included but these new dimensions are not taken into
account in this work. Furthermore, ISR-WN provides a tool that allows the navigation
across internal links. At this point, we can discover the multidimensionality of
concepts that exists in each sentence. In order to establish the concepts associated to
each sentence we apply Relevant Semantic Trees [10, 12] approach using the
provided links of ISR-WN.
Since the Clique Partitioning Technique of our approach needs as input data an
initial graph, we use ISR-WN to extract an initial graph from each sentence. Each
graph will be based on the minimal path obtained among the Relevant Concepts and
the senses of all words in each sentence. In next section we describe the algorithm of
our graph-based approach and the method that obtains the Relevant Concepts.

3 Algorithm and Method

An increasing interest on graph-based proposals in the scientific community has
motivated the appearance of different techniques applied to WSD. As we have
mentioned above, Page Rank technique is an effective performance among the novel
graph-based proposals. Although each approach is different, all of them have two
important elements in common: the technique used and the network where it will be
applied. In this section, we present our proposal of clustering technique and a method
to obtain the most relevant concepts of one sentence using the LKB from ISR-WN.

3.1 Clique Partitioning Technique

Taking into account ISR-WN and its useful properties, we propose to use them to
represent the analyzed sentences in a conceptual level (in this step we need to obtain a
sub-graph as described in section 4.1 ) also we need to reduce the semantic sub-
graphs (clusters/cliques) to identify relevant nodes within the network. Our proposal
is to use the Clique Partition Technique to obtain and discard nodes to finally build
useful semantic sub-graphs. This algorithm (introduced by Tseng [29]) is able to
extract clusters of strongly related nodes from a graph. It is based on building sets of
elements from a graph structure using the Clique model.
228 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

The Clique model was formally defined by Luce and Perry [18] and they provided
this statement: “A Clique is a set of more than two people if they are all mutual
friends of one another”. As we can see, this model had its origin in Social Network
studies.
In order to understand what is a Clique in terms of graphs definition, we present
the following explanation by Cavique et. al. [4]: “Given an undirected graph
, where denotes the set of vertices and the set of edges, the graph 1
1, 1 is called a sub-graph of if 1 ∈ , 1 ∈ and for every edge ( i, j)∈
1 the vertices i , j ∈ 1 . A sub-graph 1 is said to be complete if there is an edge
for each pair of vertices”. Each complete sub-graph is also called a Clique.
As we can appreciate the Clique model proposal obtains complete sub-graphs
where the maximal distance between the vertices is one edge. Due to the fact that the
semantic network where we will apply the Partitioning Technique is integrated by
thousand of vertices, the maximal distance between the vertices must be increased. In
order to decide which model we should use to modify the original algorithm we have
studied different authors [3, 8, 14, 17] with N-Cliques, [3] with K-Plex and [20] with
Clubs and Clans.
After studying different models we considered to use N-Cliques model to
Partitioning Technique which is very similar to Cliques model. Instead we use
distance among vertices of each complete sub-graph. This partitioning idea was
introduces on WSD by Gutiérrez et. al. [14], which was assumed by us. In order to
apply this technique, we only have taken into account the creation of one N-Clique
and the rest of the complete sub-graph will be Cliques. Our goal is to centralize the
highest quantity of semantic information completely on one N-Clique (explained
more in detail in [14]). To understand this algorithm we show an example at Fig 1
using 2 as edges distances.

N=2
S(s1,s2) = {s3, s4, s5, s6} N=1
s1 s2 s1 s3 S(s26,s1) = {s5}
s3 S(s1,s5) = {s2, s6} s2 S(s26,s3) = {}
S(s2,s4) = {s1, s3, s6}
S(s26,s4) = {}
S(s2,s3) = {s1, s6, s4}
s4 s5 s6 s6 S(s26,s5) = {}
S(s2,s6) = {s1, s3, s4, s5, s8} s4 s5
S(s5,s6) = {s1, s2, s8} S(s26,s8) = {s5}
S(s1,s5) = {s26}
s7 s8 S(s6,s8) = {s2, s5, s7}
s7 s8 S(s7,s8) = {s9}
S(s7,s8) = {s9, s6}
s9 S(s7,s9) = {s8}
S(s7,s9) = {s8, s6} s9
Iteration 1 S(s8,s9) = {s7,s 6} Iteration 2 S(s8,s9) = {s7}

N=1 s3 N=1
s1 s3 S(s261,s5) = {}
s2 s1 s2 S(s261,s5) = {}
S(s7,s8) = {s9} s6 S(s78,s9) = {}
s4 s6 S(s7,s9) = {s8}
S(s8,s9) = {s7}
s5 s5 s8
s8 s7
s7
s4
Iteration 3 Iteration 4
s9 s9

N=1
s1 s2 s3 S(s78,s9) = {} s1 s2 s3
s6 s6 Iteration 6
s5 s5
s8
s7 s8 Iteration 5 s7
s4 s4 s9

s9 s789

Fig. 1. Example of Clique Partitioning Algorithm to 2 edges distances

 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 229

As we can see this heuristic algorithm is able to obtain one set of nodes with
maximal distance among all nodes 2 edges, because 2 . And it continues
obtaining Cliques with 1 where 1 for each iteration while . As
we have described in previous section, the ISR-WN resource is used to apply this
algorithm.

3.2 Relevant Semantic Trees (RST)

RST is a method which is able to analyze a sentence and obtain Relevant Semantic
Trees from different resources. Therefore, it is possible to get trees that conceptualize
the sentences in a multidimensional performance. This approach can be used with
different resources mapped to WN.
In order to establish the Concepts associated to each sentence we apply Relevant
Semantic Trees [10, 12, 13] using the provided links of ISR-WN.
In this section, we use a fragment of the original RST method with the aim of
obtaining Relevant Semantic Trees of the sentences. Notice that this step must be
applied for each resource and we have to obtain RST’s from the WN taxonomy,
SUMO, WND and WNA. Once each sentence is analyzed the Association Ratio ( )
value is obtained and related to each concept in the trees. Equation (1) is used to
measure and obtain the values of Relevant Concepts:

, , (1)

Where
,
, , log (2)

In each equation is a concept (could be a label from WN, WND, WNA or

SUMO, according to the loaded dimension (resource)); is a sentence or a set of
words ( ); i is the i-th word ( ) of the sentence s; , is joint probability
distribution; and is marginal probability.
The first stage is to Pre-process the sentence to obtain all lemmas. For instance, in
the sentence “But it is unfair to dump on teachers as distinct from the educational
establishment.” the lemmas are: [be, unfair, dump, teacher, distinct, educational,
establishment].
Next, each lemma is searched through ISR-WN resource and it is correlated with
concepts of WND (the dimension used in this example). Table 1 shows the results
after applying Equation (1) over the sentence.

Table 1. Initial Vector of Domain

AR Domain AR Domain AR Domain
0.90 Pedagogy 0.36 Politics 0.36 Quality
0.90 Administration 0.36 Environment 0.36 Psychoanalysis
0.36 Buildings 0.36 Commerce 0.36 Economy
230 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

After obtaining the Initial Concept Vector of Domains we apply the Equation (3) in
order to build the Relevant Semantic Tree related to the sentence.
, , , (3)

Where:

,
, (4)

Where , represents the value of Parent Concept ( ) related to the

sentence s; , is the AR value calculated with Equation (1) in case of Child
Concept ( ) was included in the Initial Vector, otherwise is calculated with the
Equation (3); is a Normalized Distance; is the Initial Concept from we have
to add the ancestors; is Depth of the hierarchic tree of the resource to use; and
is Minimal Path.
For example, Fig. 2 shows a part of the WND hierarchy. To build the RST from
the hierarchy line: “Administration”, “Social_Science” and “Root_Domain” we need
some iterations. In the first iteration, is “Administration”, is
“Administration” and is “Social_Science”. In the second, is
“Administration”, is “Social_Science” and is “Root_Domain”. Applying
the Equation (3), the algorithm to decide which parent concept will be added to the
vector is showed here:
if ( , > 0 ){
if ( had not been added to vector)
is added to the vector with , value;
else value = value + , value; }
This bottom-up process is applied for each Concept of the Initial Vector to add
each Relevant Parent to the vector. After reproducing the process to each Concept of
the Initial Vector, the RST is built. As a result, Table 2 is obtained. This vector
represents the domain tree associated to the sentence such as Fig 2 shows. As we can
see, the Relevant Semantic Tree of domains in Fig 2 has associated a color intensity
related to the value of each domain. The more intense the color is the more
related is.

Table 2. Final Domain Vector based on WND

AR Domain AR Domain AR Domain
1.63 Social_Science 0.36 Economy 0.36 Environment
0.90 Administration 0.36 Quality 0.11 Factotum
0.90 Pedagogy 0.36 Politics 0.11 Psychology
0.80 Root_Domain 0.36 Buildings 0.11 Architecture
0.36 Psychoanalysis 0.36 Commerce 0.11 Pure_Science
 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 231

Root_Domain

Social_Science Humanities Factotum Pure_Science Applied_Science

Comerce Economy Pedagogy Pschology Quality Environment Architecture

Administration Politics Psychoanalysis Buildings

Fig. 2. Relevant Semantic Tree from WND

As result, for each resource included (WN, WND, WNA and SUMO) an RST is
obtained. Next, it is explained the WSD global method.

4 Global Method Structure

Once each constituent of our proposal has been described we present our method. It
consists of three steps: 1. Creating an initial semantic graph. 2. Applying N-Cliques
Partitioning Technique. 3. Selecting the correct senses. Everything begins when a
sentence is introduced. After that, the lemmas of the words are obtained and next the
three steps are applied. Following, we describe the three steps.

4.1 Creating an Initial Semantic Graph

The aim of this step consists of building a semantic graph from all senses of the words
in each sentence. The connections among these senses are established using Breath
First Search (BFS) over ISR-WN, between all senses vs all the most relevant
Concepts (using Relevant Semantic Trees based on ISR-WN). The process of
building the initial graph (Fig 3) guarantees that the graph built will be more
centralized and the diameter between the corners will be the shortest.
1
“The footballer cried when winning” footballer#1 domain1
cry#1 cry#6 domain2
lemmas senses cry#2 cry#7
cry#3 cry#8 synset1
footballer footballer#1 cry#4 cry#9 SUMO1
Ten more
cry cry#1 cry#2 cry#3 cry#4 cry#5 cry#10 domain3
relevant
cry#11
cry#5 cry#6 cry#7 cry#8 cry#12 VS affect1 of the joined
cry#9 cry#10 cry#11 cry#12 winning #1 SUMO2 concept
winning #2 SUMO3 vectors
winning winning #1 winning #2
winning #3 synset2
winning #3 winning #4 winning #4
affect2
(I) Eliminate the senses that (III) senses vs concepts
not coincide with Freeling (II) Releva nt Semantic Tree
gramma tica l category suggest it

1
Initial graph

Fig. 3. Initial graph creation with all senses vs the ten most relevant concepts
232 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

These are the steps to build the initial graph:

I. First, we get all the senses from the lemmas of the sentence and next we
have to discard the senses that not match with the grammatical category
suggested by Freeling5 Pos-Tagger.
II. Next, we apply the RST method (see section 3.2) to obtain the Relevant
Semantic Trees and then select the ten6 most Relevant Concepts among all
Trees.
III. Finally, we have to obtain the shortest path among all senses according to
the Pos (I) and all the selected concepts (II); and then create the Initial
Graph avoiding repeated nodes.
It is important to remark that the initial graph is composed by synsets (senses),
Domains, Emotion labels and SUMO categories.

4.2 Applying N-Cliques Partitioning Technique

Once we have obtained the initial graph we apply N-Cliques Partitioning Technique,
the N-Cliques will be composed by all the elements that appeared in the initial graph.

4.3 Selecting the Correct Senses

After obtaining the N-Cliques, to select the correct senses it is necessary to sort the N-
Cliques by quantity of nodes. Later, for each lemma of the sentence it is checked if
the N-Cliques contains its corresponding synset. If the synset does not exist in the first
N-Clique we check next, and so on. The synset selected in this process will be
considered as the right sense for each lemma. In case of finding two or more synsets
for one lemma in a N-Clique, we select as correct the synset that the Freeling tool
returns as the most frequent in the sentence where it appears. If the lemma to
disambiguate is the verb “be” we always select the Most Frequent Sense for this
lemma (the explanation of this proceeding can be followed in Gutiérrez et. al. [14]).

5 Evaluation
Our method has been evaluated using the “English All Words” task corpus of
Senseval-2 [5] competition. The analysis has been divided into eight experiments that
have been analyzed in detail to evaluate the influence of different combinations of
resources. The experimental distance used in the Partitioning Technique was 3.
This distance is more effective and faster than other upper distances. However, using
minor distances produces worst results. The experiments are described next applying
the proposal with a graph composed by:
1. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of Domains.
2. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of SUMO.
3. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of Affects.

5
http://nlp.lsi.upc.edu/freeling/
6
After conducting several experiments the ten most relevant concepts have demonstrated to be
the best choice.
 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 233

4. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of WN taxonomy.

5. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of Domains and SUMO.
6. WN, WND, WNA and SUMO, using RST of Domains, SUMO, Affects and
WN taxonomy.
7. WN and SUMO, using RST of SUMO.
8. WN and WND, using RST of Domains.

5.1 Analysis of the Behavior of Different Grammatical Categories

Each experiment has been analyzed in order to find out the behavior of each
grammatical category. We can see in Table 3 that the adverbs disambiguation obtains
the highest accuracy, reaching 67%. On the other hand, we can notice that verbs and
adjectives have a low accuracy, respectively. After analyzing the results, our method
can be considered powerful to disambiguate adverbs. Nouns and adjectives reached
around 49% and 35% respectively. Finally, verbs obtain the worst results around 24%
because they are the most polysemous7.

5.2 General Analysis

In this section we have conducted a general analysis to detect if the integration of
WordNet resources helps the WSD task. Moreover, we are interested in knowing if
the selection of Relevant Concepts has influence on the results obtained.
Such as Table 3 shows almost all the experiments that integrate all Dimensions
improved the results of the Experiments 7 and 8, with the exception of Experiment 6.
This indicates that the applied Technique to partition the contextual graph (initial
graph) has effective performance using more information. The accuracy was
computed using the same measures as in Senseval competition. As baseline we
assumed the original proposal by Gutiérrez et al. [14] (N-Cliques+RV), which used
Reuter Vector method [19] proposed by Magnini et. al. to obtain the Relevant
Concepts. The main difference is using RST instead the Reuter Vector to build the
initial graph.

Table 3. Accuracy of the experiments: Precision (P) and Recall (R)

Total (P) Total (R) Noun (R) Adj(R) Verb(R) Adv(R)
Baseline N-Cliques+RV 0.444 0.433 0.489 0.359 0.239 0.646
Exp 1 0.436 0.426 0.490 0.353 0.231 0.639
Exp 2 0.416 0.407 0.452 0.336 0.232 0.649
Exp 3 0.515 0.413 0.467 0.323 0.243 0.646
Exp 4 0.414 0.405 0.454 0.325 0.224 0.657
Exp 5 0.414 0.405 0.451 0.333 0.228 0.652
Exp 6 0.405 0.397 0.450 0.330 0.228 0.652
Exp 7 0.425 0.402 0.483 0.345 0.197 0.585
Exp 8 0.406 0.398 0.445 0.315 0.215 0.672

7
Later of an analysis over WordNet 1.6 and 2.0, the polysemy averages for each grammatical
category respectively are the next: verbs (≈ 2.138, ≈ 2.179), adjectives (≈1.481, ≈1.447),
adverbs (≈1.249, ≈1.246) and nouns (≈1.231, ≈1.236).
234 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

The most relevant experiment was that use all mentioned resources (creating the
initial graph with RST of Domains) where the recall obtained reached 42.6%. That
indicates that WND is a semantically more influential resource than the others, when
all semantic dimensions conform the knowledge base. This result could locate our
proposal in the 11th place of Senseval-2 ranking. It is important to remark that using
WNA RST on ISR-WN improved all precision results obtained by our system.
Moreover, the usage of the affective dimension could be more effective if the
evaluated context was related to emotions.

5.3 Comparison with Previous WSD Graph-Based Approaches

Previously, we mentioned some relevant graph-based approaches. To measure and
compare them with ours we have selected those evaluated over “English All Words”
task corpus from Senseval-2.
Firstly, we start analyzing the results obtained by the original proposal N-
Cliques+RV compared with ours. In N-Cliques+RV all the remaining process is very
similar to our proposal, the main difference is related to replace the Reuter Vector by
RST to build the initial graph. The best results obtained by the original proposal are
around 43.3% and ours reached 42.6%. However, accuracy obtained by adverbs of
our approach is 67.2%, which increased the previous proposal on 2.3%. Our
conclusion is that the two proposals are very similar, due to the fact that both
proposals have not obtained significant differences in their results.
In the other hand, the very popular Page-Rank method has been used on different
tasks such as Classification of Documents or Web Page Indexing and it has been used
again by different authors Agirre and Soroa [1], Redy et. Al. [26], Soroa et. Al. [28]
and Sinha and Mihalcea [27] to solve WSD. At this time, Page Rank has been used to
determine the centrality of structural lexical networks. In these proposals cited above,
context is used to build sub-graphs similarly to our approach. Then, to disambiguate
each word it is chosen the most weighted sense. The difference with our proposal is
that they are able to assign weights to the labels ((nodes) senses) using the semantic
relations of WordNet. This important element will be considered of inclusion on new
proposals as future work.
Essentially, both proposals of Agirre and Soroa and Sinha and Mihalcea, executed
over Senseval-2 data set, conducted the same process with one difference; Mihalcea
applied an experimental phase, first with six different similarity measures assigned to
the edges and then applied four different measures of centrality. Despite of applying
these measures Mihalcea’s results did not improve Agirre’s. These approaches
obtained respectively 58.6% and 56.37% of recall. In comparison with ours, we do
not improve these results obtaining a 42.6% of recall. The reason of the lower recall
obtained is due to our proposal non-apply weight techniques to sort senses by
different scores.

6 Conclusions and Further Works

In this paper we propose a new graph-based method to solve Word Sense
Disambiguation that uses the internal semantic relations from ISR-WN (Integration of
Semantic Resource based on WordNet). Our proposal uses an adaptation of Clique
 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 235

Partition Technique using Relevant Semantic Trees in order to identify sets of

strongly related senses. With this approach we are able to obtain many densely
connected sub-graphs where each sub-graph will contain a series of proposed senses.
In case of obtaining only one sense per word, it will be selected as the right sense into
the sub-graph. However, if there are located several senses for the same word in a
sub-graph, it will be selected the Most Frequent Sense as right sense.
The evaluation of our approach was conducted using Senseval-2 corpus, obtaining
propitious results. To improve the selection criterion of right senses we could
compute the sum of weights (frequencies, page rank or similarity measures values).
After analyzing several approaches that took into account structural semantic
networks, we discovered that it is very important to assign weights to nodes in order
to distinguish the priority of the senses in the clusters of lexical structures. To do that,
we propose as future work applying Page-Rank to the Cliques obtained in our
approach, to analyze and evaluate if the results can be improved. Moreover, we want
to evaluate Page-Rank over ISR-WN without applying Cliques. The aim of this
experiment is to determine if the ISR-WN resource works better than other resources
when using Page-Rank. Besides, in order to enrich the knowledge base we plan to
include into ISR-WN gloss relations from eXtended WordNet [21].

Acknowledgments. This paper has been supported partially by Ministerio de Ciencia

e Innovación - Spanish Government (grant no. TIN2009-13391-C04-01), and
Conselleria d'Educación - Generalitat Valenciana (grant no. PROMETEO/2009/119,
ACOMP/2010/288 and ACOMP/2011/001).

References
1. Agirre, E., Soroa, A.: Personalizing PageRank for Word Sense Disambiguation. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (EACL 2009), Athens, Greece (2009)
2. Atserias, J., Villarejo, L., Rigau, G., Agirre, E., Carroll, J., Magnini, B., Vossen, P.: The
MEANING Multilingual Central Repository. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Global WordNet Conference (GWC 2004), Brno, Czech Republic (2004)
3. Balasundaram, B., Butenko, S., Hicks, I.V., Sachdeva, S.: Clique relaxations in Social
Network Analisis: The Maximun k-plex Problem (2006)
4. Cavique, L., Mendes, A.B., Santos, J.M.A.: An Algorithm to Discover the k-Clique Cover
in Networks. In: Lopes, L.S., Lau, N., Mariano, P., Rocha, L.M. (eds.) EPIA 2009. LNCS,
vol. 5816, pp. 363–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
5. Cotton, S., Edmonds, P., Kilgarriff, A., Palmer, M.: English All word. In: SENSEVAL-2:
Second International Workshop on Evaluating Word Sense Disambiguation Systems.
Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, Toulouse (2001)
6. Dorr, B.J., Castellón, M.A.M.: Spanish EuroWordNet and LCS-Based Interlingual MT. In:
AMTA/SIG-IL First Workshop on Interlinguas, San Diego, CA (1997)
7. Fellbaum, C.: WordNet. An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press, University of
Cambridge (1998)
8. Friedkin, N.E.: Structural Cohesion and Equivalence Explanations of Social Homogeneity.
Sociological Methods & Research 12, 235–261 (1984)
236 Y. Gutiérrez, S. Vázquez, and A. Montoyo

9. Gutiérrez, Y., Fernández, A., Montoyo, A., Vázquez, S.: Integration of semantic resources
based on WordNet. In: XXVI Congreso de la Sociedad Española para el Procesamiento del
Lenguaje Natural, SEPLN 2010, vol. 45, pp. 161–168. Universidad Politécnica de
Valencia, Valencia (2010)
10. Gutiérrez, Y., Fernández, A., Montoyo, A., Vázquez, S.: UMCC-DLSI: Integrative
resource for disambiguation task. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on
Semantic Evaluation, pp. 427–432. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala
(2010)
11. Gutiérrez, Y., Fernández, A., Montoyo, A., Vázquez, S.: Enriching the Integration of
Semantic Resources based on WordNet. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 47, 249–257
(2011)
12. Gutiérrez, Y., Vázquez, S., Montoyo, A.: Improving WSD using ISR-WN with Relevant
Semantic Trees and SemCor Senses Frequency. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 2011, RANLP 2011
Organising Committee, Hissar, Bulgaria, pp. 233–239 (2011)
13. Gutiérrez, Y., Vázquez, S., Montoyo, A.: Sentiment Classification Using Semantic
Features Extracted from WordNet-based Resources. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop
on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis (WASSA 2011), pp.
139–145. Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland (2011)
14. Gutiérrez, Y., Vázquez, S., Montoyo, A.: Word Sense Disambiguation: A Graph-Based
Approach Using N-Cliques Partitioning Technique. In: Muñoz, R., Montoyo, A., Métais,
E. (eds.) NLDB 2011. LNCS, vol. 6716, pp. 112–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
15. Ide, N., Véronis, J.: Introduction to the Special Issue on Word Sense Disambiguation: The
State of the Art. Computational Linguistics 24, 2–40 (1998)
16. Laparra, E., Rigau, G., Cuadros, M.: Exploring the integration of WordNet and FrameNet.
In: Proceedings of the 5th Global WordNet Conference (GWC 2010), Mumbai, India
(2010)
17. Luce, R.D.: Connectivity and generalized cliques in sociometric group structure.
Psychometrika 15, 159–190 (1950)
18. Luce, R.D., Perry, A.D.: A Method of Matrix Analysis of Group Structure.
Psychometrie 14, 95–116 (1949)
19. Magnini, B., Strapparava, C., Pezzulo, G., Gliozzo, A.: Comparing Ontology-Based and
Corpus-Based Domain Annotations in WordNet. In: Proceedings of the First International
WordNet Conference, Mysore, India, pp. 21–25 (2002)
20. Mokken, R.J.: Cliques, Clubs and Clans, vol. 13. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam (1979)
21. Moldovan, D.I., Rus, V.: Explaining Answers with Extended WordNet. ACL (2001)
22. Navigli, R.: Word sense disambiguation: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 10:11–10:69
(2009)
23. Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: Structural Semantic Interconnections: a Knowledge-Based
Approach to Word Sense Disambiguation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) 27 (2005)
24. Pianta, E., Bentivogli, L., Girardi, C.: MultiWordNet. Developing an aligned multilingual
database. In: Proceedings of the 1st International WordNet Conference, Mysore, India, pp.
293–302 (2002)
25. Ponzetto, S.P., Navigli, R.: Knowledge-Rich Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling
Supervised Systems. In: ACL, pp. 1522–1531 (2010)
 A graph-Based Approach to WSD Using Relevant Semantic Trees 237

26. Reddy, S., Inumella, A., McCarthy, D., Stevenson, M.: IIITH: Domain Specific Word
Sense Disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic
Evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala (2010)
27. Sinha, R., Mihalcea, R.: Unsupervised Graph-based Word Sense Disambiguation Using
Measures of Word Semantic Similarity. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), Irvine, CA (2007)
28. Soroa, A., Agirre, E., de Lacalle, O.L., Bosma, W., Vossen, P., Monachini, M., Lo, J.,
Hsieh, S.-K.: Kyoto: An Integrated System for Specific Domain WSD. In: Proceedings of
the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. Association for Computational
Linguistics, Uppsala (2010)
29. Tseng, C.-J., Siewiorek, D.P.: Automated Synthesis of Data Paths in Digital Systems.
IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 5, 379–395 (1986)