Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-9z9qw Total loading time: 0.186 Render date: 2021-08-02T03:51:46.790Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A novel string distance metric for ranking Persian respelling suggestions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

OMID KASHEFI
Affiliation:
School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran e-mails: kashefi@ieee.org, kashefi@iust.ac.ir, b_minaei@iust.ac.ir
MOHSEN SHARIFI
Affiliation:
School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran e-mails: kashefi@ieee.org, kashefi@iust.ac.ir, b_minaei@iust.ac.ir
BEHROOZ MINAIE
Affiliation:
School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran e-mails: kashefi@ieee.org, kashefi@iust.ac.ir, b_minaei@iust.ac.ir

Abstract

Spelling errors in digital documents are often caused by operational and cognitive mistakes, or by the lack of full knowledge about the language of the written documents. Computer-assisted solutions can help to detect and suggest replacements. In this paper, we present a new string distance metric for the Persian language to rank respelling suggestions of a misspelled Persian word by considering the effects of keyboard layout on typographical spelling errors as well as the homomorphic and homophonic aspects of words for orthographical misspellings. We also consider the misspellings caused by disregarded diacritics. Since the proposed string distance metric is custom-designed for the Persian language, we present the spelling aspects of the Persian language such as homomorphs, homophones, and diacritics. We then present our statistical analysis of a set of large Persian corpora to identify the causes and the types of Persian spelling errors. We show that the proposed string distance metric has a higher mean average precision and a higher mean reciprocal rank in ranking respelling candidates of Persian misspellings in comparison with other metrics such as the Hamming, Levenshtein, Damerau–Levenshtein, Wagner–Fischer, and Jaro–Winkler metrics.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovici, S. 1983. Errors in proofreading: evidence for syntactic control of letter processing. Memory and Cognition 11 (3): 258–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alberga, C. 1967. String similarity and misspellings. Communications of the ACM 10 (5): 302–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AleAhmad, A., Amiri, H., Darrudi, E., Rahgozar, M., and Oroumchian, F. 2009. Hamshahri: a standard Persian text collection. Knowledge-Based System 22 (5): 382–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, R., Freund, G. and Willett, P. 1983. Automatic spelling correction using a trigram similarity measure. Information Processing and Management 19 (4): 255–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkel, B. V. and Smedt, K. D. 1988. Triphone analysis: a combined method for the correction of orthographical and typographical errors. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Bledsoe, W. W. and Browning, I. 1959. Pattern recognition and reading by machine. In Proceedings of the Eastern Joint IRE-AIEE-ACM Computer Conference, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Brill, E. and Moore, R. C. 2000. An improved error model for noisy channel spelling correction. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Brown, A. 1988. A Singaporean corpus of misspellings: analysis and implications. Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society 3: 410.Google Scholar
Comeau, C., and Wilbur, W. J. 2004. Non-word identification or spell checking without a dictionary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55 (2): 169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damerau, F. J. 1964. A technique for computer detection and correction of spelling errors. Communications of the ACM 7 (3): 171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. O. 1922. What is a misspelling? In Cattell, J. McKeen, Ryan, W. Carson JR., Walters, Raymond (eds.), School and Society, vol. 15, pp. 117148. New York, USA: The Science Press.Google Scholar
Davrondjon, G., and Janowski, T. 2002. Developing a Spell-Checker for Tajik Using RAISE, Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2495, pp. 401–5. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
De Heer, T. 1982. The application of the concept of homeosemy to natural language information retrieval. Information Processing and Management 18 (5): 229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C. M., and McLean, D. S. 1981. On the need for parsing ill-formed input. Computational Linguistics 7 (4): 257.Google Scholar
Golding, A. R. 1996. A Bayesian hybrid method for context-sensitive spelling correction. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Golding, A. R., and Roth, D. 1999. A winnow-based approach to context-sensitive spelling correction. Machine Learning 34 (1–3): 107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamming, R. 1950. Error detecting and error correcting codes. Bell System Technical Journal 29 (2): 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, A., Riseman, E., and Fisher, E. 1976. Context in word recognition. Pattern Recognition 8 (1): 3545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, T. 1956. The Thirteen Books of Euclids Elements, vol. 1. New York, USA: Doner.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, D. 1975. A linear space algorithm for computing maximal common subsequences. Communications of the ACM 18 (6): 341–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, V. J., and Austin, J. 2001. An evaluation of phonetic spell checkers. Technical Report ycs 338, Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK.Google Scholar
Hodge, V. J., and Austin, J. 2003. A comparison of standard spell checking algorithms and a novel binary neural approach. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15 (5): 1073–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, D., and McCabe, M. C. 2002. Improving precision and recall for soundex retrieval. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, Las Vegas, NV, USA, pp. 22–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, V. M., and Malone, N. 2004. Adult spelling strategies. Reading and Writing 17 (6): 537–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaro, M. A. 1989. Advances in record linking methodology as applied to the 1985 census of Tampa Florida. Journal of the American Statistical Society 84 (406): 414–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaro, M. A. 1995. Probabilistic linkage of large public health data files. Statistics in Medicine 14 (5–7): 491–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantor, P. B., and Voorhees, E. M. 2000. The trec-5 confusion track: comparing retrieval methods for scanned text. Information Retrieval 2 (2–3): 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, E. M. 1971. Evaluation Parameters. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, pp 74111.Google Scholar
Korpela, A. J. 2006. Unicode Explained. Sebastopol, CA, USA: O'Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Kukich, K. 1992. Techniques for automatically correcting words in text. ACM Computing Surveys 24: 378– 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G. 2012. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Persian Studies Series. Costa Mesa, CA, USA: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
Levenshtein, V. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10: 707–10.Google Scholar
Mahootian, S., and Gebhardt, L. 1997. Persian. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masek, W. 1980. A faster algorithm computing string edit distances. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 20 (1): 1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, L. G. 1988. Cn yur cmputr raed ths? In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, K. 2000. Unification-based Persian morphology. In Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing), Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, K. 2004. Finite-state morphological analysis of Persian. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-Based Languages, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Min, K., Wilson, W. H. and Moon, Y.-J. 2000. Typographical and orthographical spelling error correction. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
Mitton, R. 1987. Spelling checkers, spelling correctors and the misspellings of poor spellers. Information Processing and Management 23 (5): 495505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, R. 2009. Ordering the suggestions of a spell checker without using context. Natural Language Engineering 15 (2): 173–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naseem, T., and Hussain, S. 2007. A novel approach for ranking spelling error corrections for Urdu. Language Resources and Evaluation 41: 117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, M. K., and Russell, R. C. 1918. US Patents Nos. 1261167 (1918) and 1435663 (1922). Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
Ola, O. 1973. Types of orthographic error. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 17 (1): 95115.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. L. 1980a. Computer programs for detecting and correcting spelling errors. Communications of the ACM 23 (12): 676–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. L. 1980b. Computer Programs for Spelling Correction. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. L. 1986. A note on undetected typing errors. Communications of the ACM 29 (7): 633–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J., and Zamora, A. 1983. Collection and characterization of spelling errors in scientific and scholarly text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34 (1): 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. J., and Zamora, A. 1984. Automatic spelling correction in scientific and scholarly text. Communications of the ACM 27 (4): 358–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasooli, M., Kashefi, O., and Minaei, B. 2011. Effect of adaptive spell checking in persian. In Proceedings of the 7th International Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering (NLP-KE), Tokushima, Japan.Google Scholar
Ristad, E. S., and Yianilos, P. N. 1998. Learning string-edit distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) 20 (5): 522–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T. A. 1986. Perceptual, cognitive, and motoric aspects of transcription typing. Psychological Bulletin 99 (3): 303–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaalan, K., Allam, A., and Gomah, A. 2003. Towards automatic spell checking for arabic. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Engineering, Cairo, Egypt.Google Scholar
Shamsfard, M., Jafari, H. S., and Ilbeygi, M. 2010. Step-1: a set of fundamental tools for Persian text processing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Stauffer, R. 1949. Research in spelling and handwriting. Review of Educational Research 19 (2): 118–24.Google Scholar
Sterling, C. M. 1983. Spelling errors in context. British Journal of Psychology 74 (3): 353–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toutanova, K., and Moore, R. C. 2002. Pronunciation modeling for improved spelling correction. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Ukkonen, E. 1985. Algorithms for approximate string matching. Information Control 64 (1–3): 100–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, J. 1977. A binary n-gram technique for automatic correction of substitution, deletion, insertion and reversal errors in words. Computer Journal 20 (2): 141–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. A., and Fischer, M. J. 1974. The string-to-string correction problem. Journal of the ACM 21 (1): 168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, W. 1999. The State of Record Linkage and Current Research Problems. Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service Publication R, 4. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Winkler, W., and Thibaudeau, Y. 1991. An application of the Fellegi-Sunter model of record linkage to the 1990 US decennial census. Research Report RR91/09, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Worthy, J., and Viise, N. M. 1996. Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading and Writing 8 (2): 139–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yannakoudakis, E., and Fawthrop, D. 1983. The rules of spelling errors. Information Processing and Management 19 (2): 8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yianilos, P. N. 1983. A dedicated comparator matches symbol strings fast and intelligentlydec. Electronics Magazine (McGraw-Hill), pp. 113–7.Google Scholar
Zobel, J., and Dart, P. 1996. Phonetic string matching: lessons from information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A novel string distance metric for ranking Persian respelling suggestions
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A novel string distance metric for ranking Persian respelling suggestions
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A novel string distance metric for ranking Persian respelling suggestions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *