Detection is the central problem in real-word spelling correction

Real-word spelling correction differs from non-word spelling correction in its aims and its challenges. Here we show that the central problem in real-word spelling correction is detection. Methods from non-word spelling correction, which focus instead on selection among candidate corrections, do not address detection adequately, because detection is either assumed in advance or heavily constrained. As we demonstrate in this paper, merely discriminating between the intended word and a random close variation of it within the context of a sentence is a task that can be performed with high accuracy using straightforward models. Trigram models are sufficient in almost all cases. The difficulty comes when every word in the sentence is a potential error, with a large set of possible candidate corrections. Despite their strengths, trigram models cannot reliably find true errors without introducing many more, at least not when used in the obvious sequential way without added structure. The detection task exposes weakness not visible in the selection task

Fifty years of spellchecking

A short history of spellchecking from the late 1950s to the present day, describing its development through dictionary lookup, affix stripping, correction, confusion sets, and edit distance to the use of gigantic databases

A Winnow-Based Approach to Context-Sensitive Spelling Correction

A large class of machine-learning problems in natural language require the characterization of linguistic context. Two characteristic properties of such problems are that their feature space is of very high dimensionality, and their target concepts refer to only a small subset of the features in the space. Under such conditions, multiplicative weight-update algorithms such as Winnow have been shown to have exceptionally good theoretical properties. We present an algorithm combining variants of Winnow and weighted-majority voting, and apply it to a problem in the aforementioned class: context-sensitive spelling correction. This is the task of fixing spelling errors that happen to result in valid words, such as substituting "to" for "too", "casual" for "causal", etc. We evaluate our algorithm, WinSpell, by comparing it against BaySpell, a statistics-based method representing the state of the art for this task. We find: (1) When run with a full (unpruned) set of features, WinSpell achieves accuracies significantly higher than BaySpell was able to achieve in either the pruned or unpruned condition; (2) When compared with other systems in the literature, WinSpell exhibits the highest performance; (3) The primary reason that WinSpell outperforms BaySpell is that WinSpell learns a better linear separator; (4) When run on a test set drawn from a different corpus than the training set was drawn from, WinSpell is better able than BaySpell to adapt, using a strategy we will present that combines supervised learning on the training set with unsupervised learning on the (noisy) test set.Comment: To appear in Machine Learning, Special Issue on Natural Language Learning, 1999. 25 page

Unsupervised Context-Sensitive Spelling Correction of English and Dutch Clinical Free-Text with Word and Character N-Gram Embeddings

We present an unsupervised context-sensitive spelling correction method for clinical free-text that uses word and character n-gram embeddings. Our method generates misspelling replacement candidates and ranks them according to their semantic fit, by calculating a weighted cosine similarity between the vectorized representation of a candidate and the misspelling context. To tune the parameters of this model, we generate self-induced spelling error corpora. We perform our experiments for two languages. For English, we greatly outperform off-the-shelf spelling correction tools on a manually annotated MIMIC-III test set, and counter the frequency bias of a noisy channel model, showing that neural embeddings can be successfully exploited to improve upon the state-of-the-art. For Dutch, we also outperform an off-the-shelf spelling correction tool on manually annotated clinical records from the Antwerp University Hospital, but can offer no empirical evidence that our method counters the frequency bias of a noisy channel model in this case as well. However, both our context-sensitive model and our implementation of the noisy channel model obtain high scores on the test set, establishing a state-of-the-art for Dutch clinical spelling correction with the noisy channel model.Comment: Appears in volume 7 of the CLIN Journal, http://www.clinjournal.org/biblio/volum