Learning Journal Unit 2

docx

School

University of the People *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3305

Subject

Computer Science

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by benvan77

Report
Learning Journal Unit 2 CS3308 Title: Leveraging a Local Dictionary for Spelling Corrections in Document Doc1 Introduction: In this assignment, we explore the use of a local dictionary to correct spelling errors in a sample document, Doc1, which contains inaccuracies in terms of spelling. The dictionary, albeit a demo version, simulates a real-world scenario where numerous words are present. The primary focus is on correcting the misspellings of the terms 'Information' and 'Jeopardy' within Doc1 using Levenshtein distance and k-gram overlap. The Role of the Dictionary: A dictionary serves as a valuable resource for spelling correction by providing a reference point for correctly spelled words. In the context of this assignment, the dictionary includes four terms: 'Information,' 'Jeopardy,' 'Lost,' and 'Mount Everest.' The objective is to leverage this dictionary to rectify spelling errors in the sample document. Approach for Correcting Spellings: 1. Levenshtein Distance: Levenshtein distance measures the minimum number of single-character edits (insertions, deletions, or substitutions) required to transform one word into another. For 'Information,' we calculate the Levenshtein distance between each candidate word in Doc1 and the correct spelling from the dictionary. The candidate with the smallest distance is chosen as the corrected spelling. Similarly, the same process is applied for correcting the term 'Jeopardy.' 2. K-gram Overlap: K-gram overlap involves breaking words into subparts of length 'k' (k-grams) and comparing their presence in the dictionary. For instance, with 'Information,' we may use a k value of 3. The word is broken into trigrams ('Inf,' 'nfo,' 'for,' 'orm,' 'rma,' 'mat,' 'ati,' 'tio,' 'ion'). We check the overlap of these trigrams with trigrams from words in the dictionary. The term with the highest overlap is considered the corrected spelling. Example Levenshtein Distance Computation: Word in Doc1 Word in Dictionary Levenshtein Distance Inforomation Information 3 Jopardy Jeopardy 2
Impact of Sorting the Dictionary: If the dictionary is not sorted, it can impact the efficiency of the correction process. Sorting the dictionary facilitates quicker searches and comparisons. In the case of Levenshtein distance, a sorted dictionary allows for early termination of the search when a minimum distance is found, optimizing the correction process. Additionally, k-gram overlap benefits from a sorted dictionary as it simplifies the matching process. Conclusion: In summary, the strategic utilization of a local dictionary for spelling corrections is underpinned by the application of advanced techniques such as Levenshtein distance and k-gram overlap. These methods provide systematic and algorithmic approaches to pinpoint and rectify misspelled words within a document, contributing to enhanced textual accuracy. The systematic nature of these processes allows for a meticulous examination of each term, ensuring precision in correction. Furthermore, the efficiency of these correction processes can be substantially heightened by maintaining a sorted dictionary. A sorted dictionary streamlines the search operations, expediting the identification of correct spellings. This optimization becomes particularly crucial in scenarios with extensive vocabularies, exemplifying the practical importance of linguistic algorithms in real-world applications. This assignment serves as a testament to the practical implications of linguistic precision, showcasing its significance across diverse domains. Beyond the immediate context of spelling corrections, these methodologies underscore the broader impact of linguistic algorithms in refining and elevating the quality of textual data. As technology continues to evolve, the meticulous application of linguistic precision becomes paramount in ensuring the reliability and accuracy of information in various applications, from natural language processing systems to information retrieval platforms. Word Count: 560 Reference: Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., & Schutze. (2009). Chapter 3. Dictionaries and tolerant retrieval. In An introduction to information retrieval . Figure 3.6, p.59. https://nlp.stanford.edu/IR- book/pdf/03dict.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help