PUB - Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld

In the past decade various semantic relatedness, similarity, and distance measures have been proposed which play a crucial role in many NLP-applications. Researchers compete for better algorithms (and resources to base the algorithms on), and often only few percentage points seem to suffice in order to prove a new measure (or resource) more accurate than an older one. However, it is still unclear which of them performs best under what conditions. In this work we therefore present a study comparing various relatedness measures. We evaluate them on the basis of a human judgment experiment and also examine several practical issues, such as run time and coverage. We show that the performance of all measures - as compared to human estimates - is still mediocre and argue that the definition of a shared task might bring us considerably closer to results of high quality.