Abstract

With increasing importance of estimating the semantic similarity between concepts this study tries to highlight some methods used in this area. Similarity measurement between concepts has become a significant component in most intelligent knowledge management applications, especially in fields of Information Extraction (IE) and Information Retrieval (IR). Measuring similarity among concepts has been considered as a quantitative measure of the information; computation of similarity relies on the relations and the properties linked between the concepts in ontology. In this study we have briefly reviewed the main categories of semantic similarity.

Keywords:

Feature based measures, hybrid measures, information content-based measures, ontology based measures,

References

1. Agirre, E., E. Alfonseca, K. Hall, J. Kravalova, M. Pasca and A. Soroa, 2009. A study on similarity and relatedness using distributional and WordNet-based approaches. Proceeding of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp: 19-27.
   CrossRef    
2. Al-Mubaid, H. and H.A. Nguyen, 2006. A cluster-based approach for semantic similarity in the biomedical domain. Proceeding of 28th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS'06), pp: 2713-2717.
   CrossRef    
3. Batet, M., D. Sánchez and A. Valls, 2011. An ontology-based measure to compute semantic similarity in biomedicine. J. Biomed. Inform., 44(1): 118-125.
   CrossRef    PMid:20837160    
4. Bollegala, D., Y. Matsuo and M. Ishizuka, 2011. A web search engine-based approach to measure semantic similarity between words. IEEE T. Knowl. Data En., 23(7): 977-990.
   CrossRef    
5. Budanitsky, A., 1999. Lexical semantic relatedness and its application in natural language processing. Technical Report CSRG-390, Computer Systems Research Group, University of Toronto, August.
   
6. Bulskov, H., 2006. Ontology-based information retrieval. Ph.D. Thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark.
   
7. Bulskov, H., R. Knappe and T. Andreasen, 2002. On measuring similarity for conceptual querying. In: Andreasen, T. et al. (Eds.), Flexible Query Answering Systems. LNAI 2522, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 100-111.
   CrossRef    
8. Chaves-González, J.M. and J. MartíNez-Gil, 2013. Evolutionary algorithm based on different semantic similarity functions for synonym recognition in the biomedical domain. Knowl-Based Syst., 37: 62-69.
   CrossRef    
9. Harispe, S., D. Sánchez, S. Ranwez, S. Janaqi and J. Montmain, 2013. A framework for unifying ontology-based semantic similarity measures: A study in the biomedical domain. J. Biomed. Inform., 48: 38-53.
   CrossRef    PMid:24269894    
10. Hirst, G. and D. St-Onge, 1998. Lexical Chains as Representations of Context for the Detection and Correction of Malapropisms. In: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp: 305-332.
    
11. Hliaoutakis, A., G. Varelas, E. Voutsakis, E.G.M. Petrakis and E. Milios, 2006. Information retrieval by semantic similarity. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf., 2(3): 55-73.
    CrossRef    
12. Jayasri, D. and D. Manimegalai, 2013. Semantic similarity measures on different ontologies: Survey and a proposal of cross ontology based similarity measure. Int. J. Sci. Res., 2(2): 455-461.
    
13. Jiang, J.J. and D.W. Conrath, 1997. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy Proceeding of International Conference Research on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING X), Taiwan.
    
14. Leacock, C. and M. Chodorow, 1998. Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, 49(2): 265-283.
    
15. Li, Y., Z.A. Bandar and D. McLean, 2003. An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE T. Knowl. Data En., 15(4): 871-882.
    CrossRef    
16. Lin, D., 1998. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML, 1998), pp: 296-304.
    
17. McInnes, B.T. and T. Pedersen, 2013. Evaluating measures of semantic similarity and relatedness to disambiguate terms in biomedical text. J. Biomed. Inform., 46(6): 1116-1124.
    CrossRef    PMid:24012881 PMCid:PMC3864022    
18. Nguyen, H.A., 2006. New semantic similarity techniques of concepts applied in the biomedical domain and WordNet. M.S. Thesis, University of Houston, USA.
    
19. Pedersen, T., S.V.S. Pakhomov, S. Patwardhan and C.G. Chute, 2007. Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J. Biomed. Inform., 40(3): 288-299.
    CrossRef    PMid:16875881    
20. Pirró, G., 2009. A semantic similarity metric combining features and intrinsic information content. Data Knowl. Eng., 68(11): 1289-1308.
    CrossRef    
21. Pirró, G. and J. Euzenat, 2010. A feature and information theoretic framework for semantic similarity and relatedness. Proceeding of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'10), 6496: 615-630.
    CrossRef    
22. Quillian, M.R., 1968. Semantic Memory. In: Minsky, M. (Ed.), Semantic Information Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge.
    
23. Rada, R., H. Mili, E. Bicknell and M. Bletner, 1989. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE T. Syst. Man Cyb., 19(1): 17-30.
    CrossRef    
24. Ren, F. and D.B. Bracewell, 2009. Advanced information retrieval. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 225: 303-317.
    CrossRef    
25. Resnik, P., 1995. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy Proceeding of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp: 448-453.
    
26. Sánchez, D., M. Batet, D. Isern and A. Valls, 2012. Ontology-based semantic similarity: A new feature-based approach. Expert Syst. Appl., 39(9): 7718-7728.
    CrossRef    
27. Saruladha, K., G. Aghila and S. Raj, 2010. A survey of semantic similarity methods for ontology based information retrieval. Proceeding of 2nd International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing (ICMLC, 2010), pp: 297-301.
    CrossRef    
28. Schickel-Zuber, V. and B. Faltings, 2007. OSS: A semantic similarity function based on hierarchical ontologies." Proceeding of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI, 2007), 7: 551-556.
    
29. Scriver, A.D., 2006. Semantic distance in wordnet: A simplified and improved measure of semantic relatedness. M.A. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.
    
30. Seco, N., T. Veale and J. Hayes, 2004. An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in WordNet. Proceeding of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI, 2004). John Wiley, Valencia, Spain.
    
31. Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27: 623-656.
    CrossRef    
32. Sussna, M., 1993. Word sense disambiguation for free-text indexing using a massive semantic network. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, New York, USA, pp: 67-74.
    CrossRef    
33. Tversky, A., 1977. Features of similarity." Psychol. Rev., 84(4): 327. Retrieved from: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/5300/10/10_chapter%202.pdf.
    CrossRef    Direct Link
34. Wu, Z. and M.S. Palmer, 1994. Verb semantics and lexical selection with incomplete and imperfect judgements. Proceeding of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge management (CIKM'06). ACM Press, New York, pp: 102-111.
    PMid:8302268    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.