=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2584/NLP4RE-paper7
|storemode=property
|title=Cross-Domain Ambiguity Detection using Linear Transformation of Word Embedding Spaces
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2584/NLP4RE-paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-2584
|authors=Vaibhav Jain,Ruchika Malhotra,Nishant Tanwar,Sanskar Jain
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/refsq/JainTJ20
}}
==Cross-Domain Ambiguity Detection using Linear Transformation of Word Embedding Spaces==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2584/NLP4RE-paper7.pdf
Cross-Domain Ambiguity Detection using Linear
Transformation of Word Embedding Spaces
Vaibhav Jain Ruchika Malhotra Sanskar Jain
vaibhav29498@gmail.com ruchikamalhotra@dtu.ac.in sanskar27jain@gmail.com
Nishant Tanwar
nishant.tanwar08@gmail.com
Department of Software Engineering
Delhi Technological University
India
Abstract
The requirements engineering process is a crucial stage of the software
development life cycle. It involves various stakeholders from different
professional backgrounds, particularly in the requirements elicitation
phase. Each stakeholder carries distinct domain knowledge, causing
them to differently interpret certain words, leading to cross-domain
ambiguity. This can result in misunderstanding amongst them and
jeopardize the entire project. This paper proposes a natural language
processing approach to find potentially ambiguous words for a given
set of domains. The idea is to apply linear transformations on word
embedding models trained on different domain corpora, to bring them
into a unified embedding space. The approach then finds words with
divergent embeddings as they signify a variation in the meaning across
the domains. It can help a requirements analyst in preventing misun-
derstandings during elicitation interviews and meetings by defining a
set of potentially ambiguous terms in advance. The paper also discusses
certain problems with the existing approaches and discusses how the
proposed approach resolves them.
1 Introduction
In the context of software engineering, requirements engineering (RE) is the process of describing the intended
behaviour of a software system along with the associated constraints [Pre10]. One of its phase is requirements
elicitation, which has been termed as the most difficult, critical, and communication-intensive aspect of soft-
ware development [AS05]. It requires interaction between different stakeholders through various techniques like
brainstorming sessions and facilitated application specification technique. A stakeholder is any person with a
vested interest in the project, such as potential users, developers, testers, domain experts, and regulatory agency
personnel [SM12]. As these stakeholders come from different professional backgrounds and carry different domain
Copyright c 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC
BY 4.0).
In: M. Sabetzadeh, A. Vogelsang, S. Abualhaija, M. Borg, F. Dalpiaz, M. Daneva, N. Fernández, X. Franch, D. Fucci, V. Gervasi,
E. Groen, R. Guizzardi, A. Herrmann, J. Horkoff, L. Mich, A. Perini, A. Susi (eds.): Joint Proceedings of REFSQ-2020 Workshops,
Doctoral Symposium, Live Studies Track, and Poster Track, Pisa, Italy, 24-03-2020, published at http://ceur-ws.org
knowledge, cross-domain ambiguity can occur amongst them. One may assign an interpretation to another’s
expression different from the intended meaning. This results in misunderstanding and distrust in requirements
elicitation meetings, and costly problems in the later stages of the software life cycle [WMGWF13].
The study of variation of word meanings across domains as an NLP problem is termed as Synchronic Lexical
Semantic Change (LSC) Detection [SHDTSIW19]. The first attempt to apply it for dealing with cross-domain
ambiguity in RE was by Ferrari et al. (2017) who used Wikipedia crawling and word embeddings to estimate
ambiguous computer science (CS) terms vis-à-vis other application domains [FDG17]. Mishra and Sharma
extended this work by focusing on various engineering subdomains [MS19]. Another approach was suggested
by Ferrari et al. (2018) which also considered the ambiguity caused by non-CS domain-specific words and
addressed some of the technical limitations of the previous work [FEG18]. This approach was later extended to
include quantitative evaluation of the obtained results [FE19]. An alternative approach which doesn’t require
domain-specific word embeddings was suggested by Toews and Holland [TH19].
This paper proposes a natural language processing (NLP) approach based on linear transformation of word
embedding spaces. Word embedding is a vector representation of a word capable of capturing its semantic
and syntactic relations. A linear transformation can be used to learn a linear relationship between two word
embedding spaces. The proposed approach produces a ranked list of potentially ambiguous terms for a given
set of domains. It constructs a word embedding space for each domain using corpora composed of Wikipedia
articles. It then applies linear transformations on these spaces in order to align them and construct a unified
embedding space. For each word in a set of target words, an ambiguity score is assigned by applying a distance
metric on its domain-specific embeddings.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 provides some background on ambiguity in
RE and linear transformation of word embedding spaces. The existing approaches to cross-domain ambiguity
detection are briefly explained in Section 3. The motivation behind the proposed approach is discussed in Section
4, whereas the apporach itself is outlined in Section 5. The experimental setup and results are presented and
discussed in Section 6, and the conclusion and details of planned future work are provided in Section 7.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Ambiguity in Requirements Engineering
Ambiguity refers to the ability of a natural language (NL) expression to be interpreted in multiple manners. As
requirements elicitation is a communication-intensive process, ambiguity is a major negative factor as it can lead
to an unclear and incomplete requirements. Most of the existing literature on ambiguity in RE is focused on
written requirement documents, and the role of ambiguity in oral NL during elicitation interviews has not been
investigated thoroughly [FSG16]. Ambiguity can cause misunderstanding situations during elicitation interviews,
where the requirements analyst does not understand the customer’s expression or interprets it incorrectly. The
latter phenomenon is known as subconscious disambiguation and is one of the major causes of requirements
failure [GW89]. It is difficult to identify unless the interpretation by the analyst is not acceptable in his or her
mental framework [FSG16]. The problem of cross-domain ambiguity can be seen as a special case of subconscious
disambiguation which is caused due to different domain knowledge.
2.2 Word Embeddings
Word embedding is a collective term for language modelling techniques that map each word in the vocabulary
to a dense vector representation. Contrary to one-hot representation, word embedding techniques embed each
word into a low-dimensional continuous space and capture its semantic and syntactic relationships [LXT+ 15].
It is based on the distributional hypothesis proposed by Harris which states that words appearing in similar
linguistic contexts share similar meanings [Har54].
One of the most popular word embedding techniques is skip-gram with negative sampling (SGNS) [MSC+ 13].
It trains a shallow two-layer neural network which, given a single input word w, predicts a set of con-
text words c(w). The context for a word wi is the set of words surrounding it in a fixed-size window, i.e.
{wi−L , · · · , wi−1 , wi+1 , · · · , wi+L }, where L is the context-window size. Each word w is associated with vectors
uw ∈ RD and vw ∈ RD , called the input and output vectors respectively. If T is the number of windows in the
given corpus, then the objective of the skip-gram model is to maximize
T
1X X
log p(wt+i |wt ) (1)
T t=1
−L6i6L;i6=0
In the negative sampling method, p(wt+i |wi ) is defined as
k
X
p(wO |wI ) = log σ(uTwI vwO ) + log σ(−uTwI vwi ) (2)
i=1
where wi ∼ P (w) and P (w) is the noise distribution.
2.3 Linear Transformation
A linear transformation can be used to learn a linear mapping from one vector space to another. Its use for
combining different word embedding spaces was first explored by Mikolov et al. who used it for bilingual machine
translation [MLS13]. They used a list of word pairs {xi , yi }ni=1 , where yi is the translation of xi . Then they
learned a translation matrix W by minimizing the following loss function
n
X
|xi W − yi | (3)
i=1
This approach can also be used for aligning monolingual word embeddings. If one assumes that the meaning of
most words remains unchanged, linear regression can be used to find the best rotational alignment between two
word embedding spaces. Failure to properly align a word can be then used to identify a change in meaning. This
is the basis for the proposed approach towards identifying cross-domain ambiguous words. Similar approaches
have been used to detect linguistic variation in the meaning of a word with time and to develop ensemble word
embedding models [KARPS15, MSL17].
Significant work has been done to improve the linear transformation method. Dimension-wise mean centering
has been shown to improve the performance of linear transformation methods in downstream tasks [ALA16].
Xing et al. noticed a hypothetical inconsistency in the distance metrics used in the optimization objectives in the
work of Mikolov et al.: dot product for training word embeddings, Euclidean distance for learning transformation
matrix, and cosine distance for similarity computations [XWLL15]. It was solved by normalizing the word
embeddings and by requiring the transformation matrix to be orthogonal. The optimal orthogonal transformation
matrix which maps X to Y can be found through the solution of the well-known Orthogonal Procrustes problem,
which is given by
W = UV T (4)
where X T Y = U ΣV T is the singular value decomposition (SVD) factorization of X T Y [Sch66].
3 Related Work
Synchronic LSC detection refers to the measurement of variation of word meanings across domains or speaker
communities [SHDTSIW19]. The latter has been studied by making use of the large-scale data provided by
communities on online platforms such as Reddit [TF17].
Research works on cross-domain ambiguity detection have been limited to its applicability in RE. The first
approach was suggested by Ferrari et al. (2017) who employed Wikipedia crawling and word embeddings to
estimate the variation of typical CS words (e.g., code, database, windows) in other domains [FDG17]. They used
Wikipedia articles to create two corpora: a CS one and a domain-specific one, replaced the target words (top-k
most frequent nouns in the CS corpus) in the latter by a uniquely identifiable modified version, and trained a
single language model for both corpora. Cosine similarity was then used as a metric to estimate the variation
in the meaning of the target words when they are used in the specified domain. However, this approach suffers
from the following drawbacks:
• the inability to identify non-CS cross-domain ambiguous words,
• the need to construct a language model for each combination of domains, and
• the need to modify the domain-specific corpus.
Their work was extended by Mishra and Sharma who applied it on various subdomains of engineering with
varying corpus size [MS19]. They identified the most suitable hyperparameters for training word embeddings
on corpora of three different classes: large, medium, and small, based on the number of documents. They then
used the obtained results to identify a similarity threshold for ambiguous words.
Ferrari et al. (2018) suggested an approach based on developing word embedding spaces for each domain, and
then estimating the variation in the meaning of a word by comparing the lists of its most similar words in each
domain [FEG18]. This approach addressed the above-mentioned drawbacks of the previous one. It was later
extended by Ferrari and Esuli, with the major contribution being the introduction of a quantitative evaluation
of the approach [FE19].
An alternative approach which does not require domain-specific word embeddings was suggested by Toews
and Holland [TH19]. It estimates a word’s similarity across domains through context similarity. This approach
does require trained word embeddings, but they are not required to be domain-specific, which allows it to be
used on small domain corpora as well. If D1 and D2 are two domain corpora, then the context similarity of a
word w is defined as
center(c1 ) · center(c2 )
simc(w) = (5)
kcenter(c1 )k · kcenter(c2 )k
1 X
center(c) = IDFD (w) · vw (6)
|c| w∈c
where c1 ⊂ D1 and c2 ⊂ D2 consist of all words from sentences containing w.
4 Motivation
The motivation behind the proposed linear transformation based approach is based on the following factors:
• The approaches suggested by Ferrari et al. (2018) and Toews and Holland judge a word’s meaning from
its local context rather than a global one. This leads them to wrongly assign a high ambiguity score to a
word having distinct, yet similar, nearest words in different domains. A particular example of this problem
is the high score assigned to proper names such as Michael ; although they are near to other proper nouns
in all domains, but the exact lists vary widely. Such approaches also fail in the opposite scenario in which
the meaning of the nearest words themselves change. This can happen in the case of ambiguous clusters.
For example, a lot of topics in artificial intelligence, such as neural networks and genetic algorithms, are
inspired by biology. Due to this, certain words appear together in both these domains but carry different
interpretations. However, the approach proposed by this paper relies on the global context rather than the
local one, which resolves the issues mentioned above.
• The proposed approach can work for more than two domains as opposed to the approaches suggested by
Ferrari et al. (2017) and Toews and Holland [FDG17, TH19].
• The approach proposed by Ferrari et al. (2018) assumes the meaning of the neighbouring words to be the
same across domains, whereas a linear transformation based approach works on a much weaker assumption
that the meaning of most words remains the same across domains.
• Schlechtweg et al. evaluated various synchronic LSC detection models on SURel, a German dataset consist-
ing of the meaning variations from general to domain-specific corpus determined through manual annota-
tion [HSSiW19, SHDTSIW19]. Their study found linear transformation to perform much better than other
alignment techniques such as word injection (proposed by Ferrari et al. (2017)) and vector initialization.
5 Approach
Given a set of domains D = {D1 , · · · , Dn }, the approach requires a word embedding space Si corresponding to
each domain Di . The first step is to align the embedding spaces (subsection 5.1) and then determine the set of
target words (subsection 5.2). The final step is to assign a cross-domain ambiguity score to each target word
(subsection 5.3).
5.1 Embedding Spaces Alignment
This step determines a transformation matrix Mi for each domain-specific word embedding space Si which maps
it to a unified embedding space. It uses an algorithm devised by Muromägi et al. [MSL17] which iteratively finds
the transformation matrices M1 , M2 , · · · , Mn and the common target space Y . It performs the following two
steps in each iteration:
1. The transformation matrices M1 , M2 , · · · , Mn are calculated using equation 4.
2. The target space is updated to be the average of all transformed spaces:
wn
1 X
Y (w) = Si (w)Mi (7)
nw i=1
where nw is the number of domain-specific embedding spaces with word w as part of its vocabulary.
These steps are repeatedly performed as long as the change in average normalised residual error, which is
given by
n
1 X kSi Mi − Y k
p (8)
n i=1 |Si | · d
is equal to or greater than a predefined threshold τ .
5.2 Target Words Selection
The approach for identifying the set of target words TD has been presented in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Algorithm for selecting target words
procedure SelectWords(C, k, ρ)
TD ← ∅
for wi ∈ Vocab(C1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ Vocab(Cn ) do
if POS(wi ) ∈ {N N, V B, ADJ} then
counts = {Freq(C1 , wi ), · · · , Freq(Cn , wi )}
c1 , c2 ← Top2Values(counts)
if c1 > k ∧ c2 > ρ × c1 then
TD ← TD ∪ {wi }
return TD
This step requires two numerical parameters, k and ρ. To be considered a target word, w must satisfy three
conditions:
• It must be a content word, i.e. noun, verb, or adjective.
• Its maximum frequency in a domain corpus, i.e. fmax = max(counti (w)), should be greater than or equal
to k.
• It should have a frequency of at least ρfmax in any other domain corpus.
5.3 Cross-Domain Ambiguity Ranking
This step assigns an ambiguity score to each word in TD based on their cross-domain ambiguity across the
corpora C = {C1 , · · · , Cn }. The algorithm for the same is reported in Algorithm 2.
The idea is as follows. For each word w in the set of target words TD , the cosine distance for each unordered
pair of its transformed embeddings is calculated, which is given by
vi · v j
cosineDistance(vi , vj ) = 1 − (9)
kvi kkvj k
The average of all these cosine distances, weighted by the sum of the word frequencies in the corresponding
domain corpora, is the ambiguity score assigned to the word w. All words in TD are sorted according to their
score and a ranked list AD is produced.
Algorithm 2 Algorithm for assigning ambiguity scores
procedure AssignAmbiguityScores(TD , M, S)
Score ← ∅
for w ∈ TD do
V ←∅
for Si ∈ S do
if w ∈ Si then
V ← V ∪ {Mi Si (w)}
U ←0
C←0
for vi ∈ V do
for vj ∈ V \ vi do
c ← counti (w) + countj (w)
U ← U + c × CosineDistance(vi , vj )
C ←C +c
Score[w] ← U/C
AD ← Sort(TD , Score)
return AD
6 Results
6.1 Project Scenarios
To showcase the working of the proposed approach, this paper considers the same hypothetical project scenarios
that were used by Ferrari and Esuli [FE19]. They involve five domains: computer science (CS), electronic
engineering (EE), mechanical engineering (ME), medicine (MED), and sports (SPO).
• Light Controller [CS, EE]: an embedded software for room illumination system
• Mechanical CAD [CS, ME]: a software for designing and drafting mechanical components.
• Medical Software [CS, MED]: a disease-prediction software.
• Athletes Network [CS, SPO]: a social network for athletes.
• Medical Device [CS, EE, MED]: a fitness tracker connected to a mobile app
• Medical Robot [CS, EE, ME, MED]: a computer-controlled robotic arm used for surgery.
• Sports Rehab Machine [CS, EE, ME, MED, SPO]: a rehabilitation machine targeted towards athletes.
The first four scenarios can be thought of as an interview between a requirements analyst with a CS and
a domain expert, whereas the other three scenarios can be regarded as group elicitation meetings involving
stakeholders from multiple domains.
6.2 Experimental Setup
The Wikipedia API for Python1 was used to construct the domain corpora by scraping articles belonging to
particular categories. A maximum subcategory depth of 3 and a maximum article limit of 20,000 was set while
creating each domain corpus.2 Each article text was converted to lowercase and all non-alphanumeric words and
stop words were removed, followed by lemmatization. The article count, word count, and vocabulary size for
each domain corpus are reported by Table 1.
1 https://pypi.org/project/wikipedia/
2 Since Category:Computer science is a subcategory of Category:Electronic engineering, it was excluded while creating the EE
corpus to avoid extensive overlap with the CS corpus.
Table 1: Domain Corpora Statistics
Domain Articles Words Vocabulary
Computer science 20,000 80,37,521 1,77,764
Electronic engineering 16,420 77,10,843 1,79,898
Mechanical engineering 20,000 1,02,02,205 1,99,696
Medicine 20,000 80,45,379 2,00,266
Sports 20,000 94,48,453 2,42,583
The word embeddings were trained using the gensim3
implementation of the word2vec SGNS algorithm with
word embedding dimension d = 50, context window size
L = 10, negative sampling size η = 5, and minimum
frequency fmin = 10. These hyperparameters were de-
liberately kept equal to the values used by Ferarri et
al. (2018) to ensure a fair comparison between their ap-
proach and the one proposed by this paper. Training of
the word embeddings was followed by length normaliza-
tion and dimension-wise mean centering. For aligning the
word embedding spaces, the threshold τ was set to 0.001.
The plot of average normalized residual errors for each
project scenario is depicted in Figure 1. The parameters
for identifying target words were set as k = 1000 and
ρ = 0.5. These hyperparameter values were chosen by the
authors through informal experiments. The source code
and the domain-specific word2vec models can be found in
the project repository4 .
6.3 Cross-Domain Ambiguity Rankings Figure 1: Plot of the average normalized residual
errors
The top-10 and bottom-10 ranked terms for each project
scenario are reported along with their ambiguity scores in
the online Appendix 1, which is available on the project repository. In order to study the cases of disagreement
between the approaches proposed by this paper and Ferrari et al. (2018), the top-5 words with the largest
absolute differences between the assigned ranks have been reported for each scenario by Table 2. The number
of target words for each project scenario have also been mentioned in parenthesis.
It can be observed that most of the cases of disagreement have a higher rank, i.e. relatively lower ambiguity
score assigned by the linear transformation approach proposed by this paper. Most of such cases are proper
names such as robert, peter, and daniel. This is because of the problems associated with local-context approaches
discussed in Section 4, and the low ambiguity score given to such words by the proposed approach is in line with
the expected behavior of a global-context approach.
7 Conclusion and Future Work
Ambiguous requirements are a major hindrance to successful software development and it is necessary to avoid
them from the elicitation phase itself. Although this problem has been studied extensively, cross-domain am-
biguity has attracted research only in recent times. This paper explores the applicability of a global-context
approach, which makes use of linear transformation to map various domain-specific language models into a uni-
fied embedding space, to solve this problem. From an NLP perspective, this paper is the first attempt to apply
an LSC detection method on more than two domains and also the first work to logically and empirically compare
the linear transformation method with the KNN-based one proposed by Ferrari et al. (2018).
A major challenge in applying this work in the field of requirements engineering is the suitability of Wikipedia
articles as the corpora source. The future work should be primarily directed towards identifying better corpora
3 https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/
4 https://github.com/vaibhav29498/Cross-Domain-Ambiguity-Detection
Table 2: Cases of Disagreement between the Linear Transformation approach (R1 ) and the one suggested by
Ferrari et al. (2018) (R2 )
Light Controller (986) Mechanical CAD (1016) Medical Software (742)
Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 | Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 | Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 |
robert 972 31 941 notion 1007 18 989 peter 741 12 729
michael 933 4 929 third 31 1008 977 thomas 727 14 713
phenomenon 971 60 911 kingdom 2 975 973 third 18 730 712
peter 902 8 894 richard 964 11 953 richard 712 19 693
wide 45 939 894 green 40 987 947 mind 707 38 669
Athletes Network (569) Medical Device (1168) Medical Robot (1507)
Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 | Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 | Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 |
daniel 562 1 561 peter 1164 23 1141 paul 1486 8 1478
robert 569 17 552 third 56 1162 1106 coating 1501 29 1472
main 28 537 509 richard 1160 76 1084 peter 1505 38 1467
effect 522 15 507 white 74 1150 1076 third 42 1504 1462
child 59 558 499 chess 1102 39 1063 richard 1482 22 1460
Sports Rehab Machine (1624)
Term R1 R2 |R1 − R2 |
daniel 1613 3 1610
love 1619 17 1602
peter 1591 16 1575
coating 1621 66 1555
told 1616 73 1543
sources which can make this area of study more applicable for the industry. Other planned future work includes
a systematic quantitative evaluation of the proposed approach, extending the approach to consider multi-word
phrases, and defining an ambiguity threshold.
References
[ALA16] Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. Learning principled bilingual mappings of word
embeddings while preserving monolingual invariance. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2289–2294, Austin, Texas, November
2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[AS05] K.K. Aggarwal and Yogesh Singh. Software Engineering. New Age International (P) Limited,
2005.
[FDG17] Alessio Ferrari, Beatrice Donati, and Stefania Gnesi. Detecting domain-specific ambiguities: An
NLP approach based on wikipedia crawling and word embeddings. In 2017 IEEE 25th Interna-
tional Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pages 393–399, Sep. 2017.
[FE19] Alessio Ferrari and Andrea Esuli. An NLP approach for cross-domain ambiguity detection in
requirements engineering. Automated Software Engineering, 26(3):559–598, Sep 2019.
[FEG18] Alessio Ferrari, Andrea Esuli, and Stefania Gnesi. Identification of cross-domain ambiguity with
language models. In 2018 5th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements
Engineering (AIRE), pages 31–38, Aug 2018.
[FSG16] Alessio Ferrari, Paola Spoletini, and Stefania Gnesi. Ambiguity and tacit knowledge in require-
ments elicitation interviews. Requirements Engineering, 21(3):333–355, Sep 2016.
[GW89] Donald C. Gause and Gerald M. Weinberg. Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design.
Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1989.
[Har54] Zellig S. Harris. Distributional structure. Word, 10(2-3):146–162, 1954.
[HSSiW19] Anna Hätty, Dominik Schlechtweg, and Sabine Schulte im Walde. SURel: A gold standard for
incorporating meaning shifts into term extraction. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference
on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2019), pages 1–8, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June
2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[KARPS15] Vivek Kulkarni, Rami Al-Rfou, Bryan Perozzi, and Steven Skiena. Statistically significant de-
tection of linguistic change. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide
Web, WWW ’15, pages 625–635, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Interna-
tional World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
[LXT+ 15] Yitan Li, Linli Xu, Fei Tian, Liang Jiang, Xiaowei Zhong, and Enhong Chen. Word embedding
revisited: A new representation learning and explicit matrix factorization perspective. In Proceed-
ings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’15, pages 3650–3656.
AAAI Press, 2015.
[MLS13] Tomas Mikolov, Quoc V. Le, and Ilya Sutskever. Exploiting similarities among languages for
machine translation. ArXiv, abs/1309.4168, 2013.
[MS19] S. Mishra and A. Sharma. On the use of word embeddings for identifying domain specific ambi-
guities in requirements. In 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference
Workshops (REW), pages 234–240, Sep. 2019.
[MSC+ 13] Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Distributed represen-
tations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the 26th International
Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2, NIPS’13, pages 3111–3119,
USA, 2013. Curran Associates Inc.
[MSL17] Avo Muromägi, Kairit Sirts, and Sven Laur. Linear ensembles of word embedding models. In Pro-
ceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 96–104, Gothenburg,
Sweden, May 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[Pre10] Roger S. Pressman. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill, 2010.
[Sch66] Peter H. Schönemann. A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychome-
trika, 31(1):1–10, Mar 1966.
[SHDTSIW19] Dominik Schlechtweg, Anna Hätty, Marco Del Tredici, and Sabine Schulte Im Walde. A wind
of change: Detecting and evaluating lexical semantic change across times and domains. In
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages
732–746, 01 2019.
[SM12] Yogesh Singh and Ruchika Malhotra. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. PHI Learning, 2012.
[TF17] Marco Del Tredici and Raquel Fernández. Semantic variation in online communities of practice.
In IWCS 2017 - 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics - Long papers, 2017.
[TH19] Daniel Toews and Leif Van Holland. Determining domain-specific differences of polysemous words
using context information. In Joint Proceedings of REFSQ-2019 Workshops, Doctoral Sympo-
sium, Live Studies Track, and Poster Track co-located with the 25th International Conference on
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2019), Essen, Germany,
March 18th, 2019., 2019.
[WMGWF13] Yue Wang, Irene L. Manotas Gutièrrez, Kristina Winbladh, and Hui Fang. Automatic detec-
tion of ambiguous terminology for software requirements. In Natural Language Processing and
Information Systems, pages 25–37, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[XWLL15] Chao Xing, Dong Wang, Chao Liu, and Yiye Lin. Normalized word embedding and orthogonal
transform for bilingual word translation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North
American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech-
nologies, pages 1006–1011, Denver, Colorado, May–June 2015. Association for Computational
Linguistics.