Creating a Hybrid Rule and Neural Network Based Semantic Tagger using Silver Standard Data: the PyMUSAS framework for Multilingual Semantic Annotation

Andrew Moore, Paul Rayson, Dawn Archer, Tim Czerniak, Dawn Knight, Daisy Lal, Gearóid Ó Donnchadha, Mícheál Ó Meachair, Scott Piao, Elaine Uí Dhonnchadha, Johanna Vuorinen, Yan Yabo, Xiaobin Yang · Jan 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) has been widely evaluated using the semantic frameworks of WordNet, BabelNet, and the Oxford Dictionary of English. However, for the UCREL Semantic Analysis System (USAS) framework, no open extensive evaluation has been performed beyond lexical coverage or single language evaluation. In this work, we perform the largest semantic tagging evaluation of the rule based system that uses the lexical resources in the USAS framework covering five different languages using four existing datasets and one novel Chinese dataset. We create a new silver labelled English dataset, to overcome the lack of manually tagged training data, that we train and evaluate various mono and multilingual neural models in both mono and cross-lingual evaluation setups with comparisons to their rule based counterparts, and show how a rule based system can be enhanced with a neural network model. The resulting neural network models, including the data they were trained on, the Chinese evaluation dataset, and all of the code have been released as open resources.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.