Systematic Literature Review of Stemming and
Lemmatization Performance for Sentence Similarity
Rio Pramana
2022 IEEE 7th International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications (ICITDA) | 978-1-6654-6136-8/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICITDA55840.2022.9971451
Computer Science Department Computer Science Department
School of Computer Science School of Computer Science
Bina Nusantara University Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480 Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
rio.pramana@binus.ac.id debora002@binus.ac.id
Alexander Agung Santoso Gunawan
Computer Science Department
School of Computer Science
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
aagung@binus.edu
Abstract—In today’s era, where the Internet is a huge part
of people’s life, Information Retrieval (IR) is as important as
ever for people to retrieve relevant information in a quick way.
The sentence similarity task is an integral aspect of IR.
Improving the performance of this task will also improve IR.
To help achieve this, stemming and lemmatization was made.
However, it is still unclear to many which one is the best to use
for sentence similarity tasks. Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to find which preprocessing technique (stemming and
lemmatization) is best for sentence similarity tasks. In this
study, the authors would like to conduct a Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) on stemming and lemmatization
based on many previous studies related to this topic. Previous
studies have tried to assess and compare both preprocessing
techniques using many evaluation methods, and it is found that
a lot of factors go into deciding which preprocessing technique
(stemming or lemmatization) is the best option. In general, the
authors conclude lemmatization is considered the best option
for sentence similarity tasks since it produces better results
than stemming. However, if speed optimization is imperative,
then stemming is the better option since its computational
speed is faster.
Keywords—systematic literature review, stemming,
lemmatization, sentence similarity, information retrieval
I. INTRODUCTION
In today’s era, the Internet is a large part of most
people’s daily life. Consequently, the size of information we
can find on the internet is massive and likely to increase in
the future. In October 2018, there was an estimate of 4,5
billion indexed pages in Google [1]. This calls for an
improvement in information retrieval methods to ensure that
people can still search for relevant information at high speed
[2].
One of the most important tasks in information retrieval
is sentence similarity. Sentence similarity can be defined as
a measure of similarity between sentences. However,
computing sentence similarity is not an easy task, especially
when we want to determine semantically equivalent
sentences [3]. Thus, preprocessing techniques were born to
help improve information retrieval performance, two of
them are stemming and lemmatization [2].
Stemming and lemmatization are language
preprocessing techniques to ensure that different versions of
a word are not left out [4]. Text preprocessing is done to
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Debora Jonathan Jansen Subroto
Computer Science Department
School of Computer Science
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
jonathan.subroto@binus.ac.id
Anderies
Computer Science Department
School of Computer Science
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
anderies@binus.edu
present a format that is comprehensible, predictable, and
analyzable [5]. Stemming and lemmatization are important
processes used in the preprocessing stage of Information
Retrieval (IR) [6,7]. Both preprocessing techniques have the
similar basic principle, which is to group similar words that
either have the same root or the same canonical citation
form [5].
Stemming reduces the words to a stem by reducing the
words to the common stem merely by abridging the suffix
to its base root and the semantic meaning remains the same
[5,8-10]. They do not consider the grammatical rules of the
language [11]. For example, plays, played, playful, player,
playground, and playlist will be reduced to “play”, which is
its base root or stem. Unlike stemming, lemmatization must
always produce an actual word form [12]. Lemmatization
removes the inflectional endings and returns the base or
dictionary form of the word to reduce variations of the word
[13,14]. It either removes or replaces the suffix of the word
to bring it to its base called as lemma [5,8]. For example,
from the words running, run, ran all will return to its base
form “run”, this is what we called as lemma.
Stemming chops off the prefix or suffix (the end or
beginning) of the word. On the other hand, lemmatization
considers the study of the word-texts that can add meaning
to the word itself. For example, in stemming, the form word
is ‘studies’ (has the suffix of ‘-es’), chopping the suffix,
resulting in ‘studi’. However, in lemmatization, the form
word is ‘studies’, they will try to identify the information of
the word, whether it is a singular or a third person point of
view. In this case, ‘studies’ is a present tense of the verb
‘study’, and so the resulting lemma of ‘study’ [27].
There have been a lot of studies that show the
improvement of information retrieval when using stemming
or lemmatization. On the other hand, when it comes to
sentence retrieval/similarity, the usefulness of stemming
and lemmatization is not clear [12,15-18]. Furthermore,
there are many of these studies that only vaguely mention
the usefulness and performance of stemming and
lemmatization with non-concrete results. This can be
confusing for computer scientists to choose which
preprocessing technique is best for their sentence similarity
task, especially because stemming and lemmatization can
yield different results depending on many factors in these
tasks such as the length of the queries [16].
 Therefore, this paper aims to show assessments and
comparison of the performance and impact of stemming and
lemmatization for sentence similarity tasks. With this paper,
we expect to make the decision clearer for which
preprocessing technique (stemming and lemmatization) is
best for sentence similarity tasks. The remainder of the
paper is arranged as follows: first we discuss the
methodology of our study and then is followed by the results
of systematic literature review (SLR), in section 2. In
section 3, we discuss the comparison of stemming and
lemmatization to find out which one is better for sentence
similarity tasks. Finally, we concluded our work with
suggestions for the next research in section 4.
II. STUDY REVIEW
A. Planning the Review
This study looks at respected scholarly articles that have
a link to certain keywords in the title or content. Papers,
journals, and theses were sourced from a variety of
electronic databases. These electronic databases are
certified, and we only select manuscripts that contain
academic documents that have been accepted
internationally.
TABLE I. SEARCH TERMS & LOCATIONS
Search Locations Search Terms
Paper provides a comparison in
some way between stemming and
lemmatization
Several research questions are formulated in order to
assess all of the publications and extract important
information. These research questions, which aim to make
data collection and analysis easier, are:
RQ1: What are the evaluation methods used to assess the
performance of stemming and lemmatization?
RQ2: What factors influence the performance of
stemming and lemmatization in Sentence Similarity tasks?
RQ3: Which preprocessing technique (stemming and
lemmatization) is better for sentence similarity tasks?
B. Conducting the Review
The methodology used for this study is a Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) [19]. We collected some data from
journals, proceedings, and literature reviews related to the 3
research questions we have designed. We used PRISMA
(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses) checklist methodology to help us evaluate
the papers used in this study [19]. More detail of this process
is shown in the PRISMA Flowchart below (Fig. 1).

IEEE Xplore (“stemming” AND

“lemmatization”) OR
“stemming” OR
“lemmatization”
PubMed
“sentence similarity” OR
“document retrieval” OR
“sentence retrieval” OR
Google Scholar “information retrieval”
“compare” OR “comparison”
ScienceDirect “performance”

To ensure the eligibility of the works selected, we apply

the selection criteria in Table II using search terms and
search locations in Table I. Several factors that we consider
are the source's credibility, citation number, research
paper’s publication year, and relevant articles related to
sentence similarity tasks using stemming and
lemmatization.

TABLE II. SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Internationally recognized paper Papers not written in English.

Paper that uses stemming and/or Papers uses a dataset that

lemmatization for sentence
similarity or information retrieval
tasks
Paper discussing the performance
or impact of stemming,
lemmatization, or both
Paper is published within the last
5 years (With exception for
papers with very high relevance
and contributes a lot to the topic)
mostly does not require
stemming, lemmatization, or
both.
Fig. 1. PRISMA Flowchart
When searching for previous studies using search terms
and locations in Table I, we have found 2024 documents.
Then, we filter all documents we found using selection
criteria defined in Table II. As a result, we found 29
previous studies matching all of our selection criteria. We
also checked references used in these 29 previous studies
and found 4 more previous studies that are relevant to this

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
study and match the selection criteria. Overall, we found 33
previous studies eligible to be analyzed for this study as they
all met the selection criteria.
C. Analysis
After collecting the paper, we read and analyze the
eligible papers. Then, we compare the performance of both
stemming and lemmatization, as well as their comparison if
provided, to view the pros and cons of both preprocessing
techniques, especially in sentence similarity related tasks.
The following are our analysis of the reviewed papers to
answer each research question.
RQ1: What are the evaluation methods used to assess the
performance of stemming and lemmatization?
Usually, a handful of text or queries are selected to be
used as data sets. Then, stemming and lemmatization are
performed on the queries and their accuracies are calculated.
Lastly, the performance of stemming and lemmatization are
evaluated by comparing their accuracies with one another
[2,16].
Stemming and lemmatization are evaluated through
training datasets to extract required statistics by using many
evaluation methods to study their performance. One of them
is Paice’s evaluation methodology, which is based on error
counting and predefined groups of words which are
semantically related. Another methodology is Frake’s
evaluation method to assess the performance of stemming
from the indication degree of variation of the derived stem.
Another one is Sirsat’s evaluation method, which provides
captivating criteria in assessing the performance strength of
stemming. Sirsat’s evaluation method uses word stemmer
factor (WSF) that provides the average words being
stemmed. The higher WSF, stemming performance
becomes better [20].
Other evaluation methods used in these papers include
Mean Average Precision (MAP) to evaluate document
relevance from the document retrieval process [2], the
Pearson correlation coefficient from the result of cosine
similarity for each word [15], R-precision [16], calculating
recall, precision [17] and effective measures [21],
measuring the Davies-Bouldin Index (DBI) [10], F1-score
[22], and the occurrence of words by searching their
similarities as a surface word, stem, and lemma [23]. These
effective measures are paradoxically related to recall and
precision. The small values indicate high effectiveness,
whereas large values indicate low effectiveness [21].
The usage amount of each method in previous studies
we analyzed is shown in the table below.
TABLE III. FREQUENCY OF EVALUATION METHODS USED
Method Frequency
Precision 11
Recall 10
F1-score 6 knowledge of dictionaries in order to provide a basis for the
Mean Average Precision (MAP) 5 Stemming is especially affected by the language of the
Paice’s 3
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Pearson Correlation Coefficient 2
Occurence of Words 1
Rate of Dissimilarity 1
R-precision 1
Frake’s 1
Sirsat’s 1
Davies-Bouldin Index (DBI) 1
Accuracy 1
In Table III, there are a total of 13 evaluation methods.
7 of these 13 methods are only used once throughout the
previous studies we analyzed, while Pearson Correlation
Coefficient and Paice’s evaluation method were used twice
and thrice respectively. There are 4 most popular evaluation
methods used based on the numbers in Table III, they are
precision, recall, F1-score, and Mean Average Precision
(MAP) being used in 5 or more previous studies.
Recall indicates the ratio between relevant documents
retrieved and the total possible relevant documents.
Meanwhile, precision indicates the ratio between relevant
documents retrieved and the documents retrieved by the
stemmer or lemmatizer. The F1-measure combines these
two ratios [20]. Average Precision (AvP) calculates the
mean of both precision and recall, while MAP is the mean
of all AvP when there are multiple queries [18,20].
There are 9 other evaluation methods that were rarely
used with a frequency of less than 4. Most of these methods
do not revolve around precision and recall, which usually
are the main focus of stemming and lemmatization [21].
Some of these methods can only be applied to specific
implementations and do not focus on measuring data
directly related to the performance of stemming and
lemmatization themselves. For example, Pearson
correlation coefficient focuses more on measuring relations
between data [15] and Davies-Bouldin Index focuses more
on evaluating clustering algorithms [10]. This might be the
reason why these 9 methods are rarely used for evaluating
stemming and lemmatization.
RQ2: What factors influence the performance of stemming
and lemmatization in Sentence Similarity tasks (especially
for different languages)?
Some factors which may influence the performance of
stemming and lemmatization include, but are not limited to,
algorithms used, language of the dataset, query length, and
irregular word forms [15,16,18,24]. What we found in these
papers is that the performances of stemming and
lemmatization are heavily dependent on these factors and
the task at hand.
English language has been widely used and resulting in
having a wide range of linguistic dictionaries, compared to
Arabic or Amazigh language that requires more linguistic
base form of the word composed in those languages [22].
dataset, because stemmers are highly dependent on the rules
and morphology of a language; this is the reason why a
stemming algorithm, when applied to different languages,
will produce different results. For example, a stemmer or
lemmatizer can perform really well when facing an English
dataset but could perform really poorly when handling an
Arabic dataset [24].
In the case of an Arabic dataset, stemmers tend to
produce results with low accuracy due to the overall
complex nature of the language itself and its intricate
morphology. An example to explain further as to why the
language is complex is the existence of numerous words
with a wide variety of meanings (which is dependent on the
context) [25,26].
Another heavy factor which affects the performance of
these preprocessing techniques is word forms, which is the
case with the Indonesian language, in which the words often
have imprecise base forms due to the fact that adding affixes
to the root words will drastically change its meaning [24].
A previous study by Boban et al. has analyzed the
impact of query length to the performance of TF-ISF (term
frequency - inverse sentence frequency) method using
stemming and TF-ISF method using lemmatization [16].
Fig. 2. Comparison of stemming and lemmatization on different query
length
Based on the results seen in Fig. 2, there is an indication
that stemming is better used for shorter queries, while
lemmatization is better used for longer queries. These
results were retrieved by comparing stemming and
lemmatization evaluation results on each test. If one method
performed better than the other and the difference is
statistically significant enough, then it is counted as a better
result [16].
Nicolai & Kondrak have tried to make their own
stemmer and compare it to other known stemmers in a
previous study [12]. They found that two known stemmers
called Snowball and Morfessor performed way worse
compared to the stemmer they built. Their stemmer was able
to achieve 88% accuracy and can improve up to 98.5%
when trained and tested on a dataset. On the other hand,
Snowball and Morfessor only managed to get 58.8% and
71.4% accuracy and performed even worse when trained
and tested on the same dataset that Nicolai & Kondrak used
for their stemmer. This study done by Nicolai & Kondrak
shows that choosing the right algorithm matters immensely.
Stemming performance itself can also be influenced if it
has an issue of overstemming. This may cause loss of the
word context as it removes too much of the stem, which may
result in a distinct word being conjugated. Stemming
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
influences the performance system, in which it should
acquire a high number of relevant documents (high recall)
and only a few non-relevant documents (high precision)
[21].
RQ3: Which preprocessing technique (stemming and
lemmatization) is better for sentence similarity tasks?
Lemmatization provides a more accurate outcome as it
makes use of derivative analysis and vocabulary which does
not irrespectively chop of words that do not provide
meaningful context of information while typically,
stemming is less accurate and less suited for processes
where the meaning of the words is not that important in
comparison to lemmatization [27].
A few of previous studies that we analyzed have come
to inconclusive results on which preprocessing technique
(stemming and lemmatization) is better in terms of accuracy
[12,15-18]. On the other hand, all of the other previous
studies that we analyzed have found that lemmatization is in
fact better than stemming in terms of accuracy. Many of
these studies found that the difference between stemming
and lemmatization in terms of accuracy is insignificant.
Sometimes the difference can even be less than 1% [16].
However, in sentence similarity tasks it is important for us
to compare the meaning of the words. Therefore, it is
believed that lemmatization is better for sentence similarity
tasks [27]. A previous study also found that lemmatization
is still widely used on a smaller corpora as it has lower error
rate and provides accountable results compared to stemming
[29].
In spite of that, when selecting a preprocessing
technique, accuracy is not the only factor that we should
consider. We also need to consider the computational speed
of the preprocessing technique. In a previous study done by
Pradha et al., they compared the computational speed of
stemming and lemmatization from their experiments. They
found that stemming is more than twice as fast as
lemmatization [28]. The reason why stemming typically
performs faster than lemmatization is because unlike
stemming, lemmatization considers the context in which the
words are used before converting them to their base forms
which adds to the processing/conversion time [11]. For this
factor, stemming is proven to be the better preprocessing
technique compared to lemmatization because it requires
less computational speed.
Ultimately, the choice of preprocessing technique comes
back to the requirements of the sentence similarity task
while considering many factors that come into play as
described in RQ2. In general, if accuracy is the highest
priority, then lemmatization is a better choice. On the other
hand, if computational speed is the highest priority and
highest possible accuracy is not really needed, then
stemming is a better choice.
III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
This section focuses on the results of previous studies on
stemming and lemmatization in sentence similarity related
tasks and discusses which is the best preprocessing
technique for sentence similarity task based on these
previous studies.
 TABLE IV. PAPERS RESULT OVERVIEW and lemmatization are mainly used to improve recall and
precision [21].
Best preprocessing technique in
terms of From previous studies, we found that some studies are
Previous Study still not able to find a conclusive result as they found mixed
Accuracy Speed
results in their experiment using stemming and
lemmatization [8,12,16-18]. On the other hand, all of the
other studies have found a conclusive result which can be
Singh, S., & Pateriya, R. K. Lemmatization Stemming seen in Table IV. All of them found that lemmatization is
[11]
the preprocessing technique that produces the best result
Pradha, S., Halgamuge, M.
over stemming. However, most of these studies who claim
N., & Vinh, N. T. Q Lemmatization Stemming lemmatization produces the best result also found that the
[28] difference between stemming and lemmatization is not
Balakrishnan, V., & Lloyd- significant. So, even though lemmatization comes out on
Yemoh, E. Lemmatization (Not researched) top, the margin between stemming and lemmatization in
[2] terms of precision is small. In spite of this, in sentence
Arimbawaa, I. G. A. P., & similarity tasks where high accuracy is required,
ERa, N. A. S Lemmatization (Not researched) lemmatization is a stronger option as it will give better
[14] results compared to stemming. A previous study makes this
a stronger case for tasks where smaller corpora is involved
Alhawarat, M. O., et al.
[15] Lemmatization (Not researched) as lemmatization is even better than stemming in this case
[29].
Tuomo Korenius, Jorma et
al. Lemmatization (Not researched) However, when applying these preprocessing
[21] techniques, computational speed is also a factor to consider.
Two previous studies found that stemming is better than
Samir, A., & Lahbib, Z. Lemmatization (Not researched) lemmatization in terms of computational speed as seen in
[22]
Table IV [11,28]. Considering that previous studies have
found the differences between stemming and lemmatization
Zeroual, I., & Lakhouaja, A. Lemmatization (Not researched) is usually insignificant in terms of accuracy, stemming has
[23]
been used more widely than lemmatization [18] as it offers
similar performance to lemmatization while having faster
Hickman, L., et al. Lemmatization (Not researched) computational speed.
[29]
Outside of speed and accuracy, it has been found by
Balakrishnan, V., et al. previous studies that there are many factors to consider
[30] Lemmatization (Not researched)
when choosing between stemming and lemmatization. For
example, choosing the right stemmer and lemmatizer is
Suzanne Pereira 1, et al Lemmatization (Not researched) proven to be an important factor as each stemmer and
[31]
lemmatizer is different in some ways that can affect the
results [15]. Another study also found an interesting result
Al-Shammari, E., & Lin, J. Lemmatization (Not researched) where they conclude that lemmatization produces better
[32]
results with longer queries compared with stemming [16].
One stemmer or lemmatizer also will not be suitable for
Konkol, M., & Konopík, M. Lemmatization (Not researched)
[33] every language as some studies found that a stemmer or
lemmatizer can perform well in one language but perform
Many studies have been done to assess and compare the far worse when used for another language [12,24-26]. A
performance of stemming and lemmatization when they are possible cause for this is that some languages have irregular
applied to sentence similarity related tasks, including the word forms that affect the performance of the preprocessing
ones on Table IV. These studies mostly focus on measuring technique used.
how much improvement stemming and lemmatization
brings when applied to sentence similarity related tasks in IV. CONCLUSION
various languages, such as English, French, Portuguese, In this study, we have reviewed previous studies
Arabic, Amazigh, Dutch, German, Spanish and Indonesia regarding the impact of stemming and lemmatization on the
[10,12,18,22,23]. performance of sentence similarity related tasks and their
Among the plethora of different studies selected for this comparisons. From these studies, the performance of
paper, many evaluation methods were applied by these stemming and lemmatization were evaluated using many
studies to assess and compare the performance of stemming known evaluation methods, with recall, precision, F1-score,
and lemmatization with recall, precision, F1-score, and and Mean Average Precision (MAP) being the most used.
MAP being the most used evaluation methods. All 4 of these Interestingly, we found that there are many factors that
evaluation methods revolve around measuring stemming go into deciding which preprocessing technique to choose
and lemmatization impact on recall and precision. for the best improvement in sentence similarity task. First,
Therefore, it makes sense that these methods were the most choosing the best stemmer or lemmatizer suited for the task
used ones since preprocessing techniques such as stemming and language of the dataset is crucial because choosing the

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
wrong one will make the performance worse. Second, we
found that lemmatization is best for datasets with small
corpora and longer queries. Otherwise, stemming is the best
option.
In general, most of the previous studies we researched
agrees that lemmatization produces the best result, although
the difference with stemming is usually insignificant.
However, in sentence similarity tasks where high accuracy
is required, lemmatization becomes the better option. On the
other hand, stemming offers better computational speed and
similar performance with lemmatization. Therefore, if
speed optimization is a high priority, then stemming is the
better option.
We have found several factors that influence these
preprocessing techniques, but it is still unclear which factor
has the biggest influence. Based on our analysis, we suggest
future research to find which factor(s) have the most
influence on the performance of stemming and
lemmatization. It could help the decision-making process
when choosing between stemming and lemmatization.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Harman, “Information retrieval: The early years,” Foundations
and Trends® in Information Retrieval, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 425–577,
2019.
[2] V. Balakrishnan and L.-Y. Ethel, “Stemming and lemmatization: A
comparison of retrieval performances,” Lecture Notes on Software
Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 262–267, 2014.
[3] P. Achananuparp, X. Hu, and X. Shen, “The evaluation of sentence
similarity measures,” Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery,
pp. 305–316, 2008.
[4] M. IŞIK and H. DAĞ, “The impact of text preprocessing on the
prediction of review ratings,” TURKISH JOURNAL OF
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTER SCIENCES, vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 1405–1421, 2020.
[5] A. Tabassum and R. R. Patil, “A Survey on Text Pre-Processing &
Feature Extraction Techniques in Natural Language Processing,”
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET), 2020.
[6] I. Akhmetov, A. Pak, I. Ualiyeva, and A. Gelbukh, “Highly language-
independent word lemmatization using a machine-learning
classifier,” Computación y Sistemas, vol. 24, no. 3, 2020.
[7] S. I. Hajeer, R. M. Ismail, N. L. Badr, and M. F. Tolba, “A new
stemming algorithm for efficient information retrieval systems and
web search engines,” Multimedia Forensics and Security, pp. 117–
135, 2017.
[8] S. Abujar, M. Hasan, and S. A. Hossain, “Sentence similarity
estimation for text summarization using Deep Learning,”
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data
Engineering and Communication Technology, pp. 155–164, 2018.
[9] M. Haroon, “Comparative analysis of stemming algorithms for web
text mining,” International Journal of Modern Education and
Computer Science, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 20–25, 2018.
[10] A. S. Rizki, A. Tjahyanto, and R. Trialih, “Comparison of stemming
algorithms on Indonesian text processing,” TELKOMNIKA
(Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 95-102, 2019.
[11] S. Singh and R. K. Pateriya, “A survey on various Stemming
Algorithms,” Int. J. Comput. Eng. Res. TRENDS, vol. 2, no. 5, pp.
310-315, 2015.
[12] G. Nicolai and G. Kondrak, “Leveraging inflection tables for
stemming and lemmatization.,” Proceedings of the 54th Annual
Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1:
Long Papers), pp. 1138–1147, 2016.
[13] D. Gupta, R. Kumar Yadav, and N. Sajan, “Improving unsupervised
stemming by using partial lemmatization coupled with data-based
heuristics for Hindi,” International Journal of Computer
Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1–8, 2012.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of New Brunswick. Downloaded on November 12,2023 at 23:32:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[14] I. G. Purnajiwa Arimbawa and N. A. Sanjaya ER, “Lemmatization in
Balinese language,” JELIKU (Jurnal Elektronik Ilmu Komputer
Udayana), vol. 8, no. 3, p. 235, 2020.
[15] M. O. Alhawarat, H. Abdeljaber, and A. Hilal, “Effect of stemming
on text similarity for Arabic language at sentence level,” PeerJ
Computer Science, vol. 7, 2021.
[16] I. Boban, A. Doko, and S. Gotovac, “Sentence retrieval using
stemming and lemmatization with different length of the queries,”
Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 349–354, 2020.
[17] G. M. Di Nunzio and F. Vezzani, “A linguistic failure analysis of
classification of Medical Publications: A Study on stemming vs
lemmatization,” Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on
Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018, pp. 182–186, 2018.
[18] F. N. Flores and V. P. Moreira, “Assessing the impact of stemming
accuracy on Information Retrieval – A multilingual perspective,”
Information Processing & Management, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 840–854,
2016.
[19] D. Pati and L. N. Lorusso, “How to write a systematic review of the
literature,” HERD: Health Environments Research & Design
Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15–30, 2018.
[20] A. Jabbar, S. Iqbal, M. I. Tamimy, S. Hussain, and A. Akhunzada,
“Empirical evaluation and study of text stemming algorithms,”
Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 5559–5588, 2020.
[21] T. Korenius, J. Laurikkala, K. Järvelin, and M. Juhola, “Stemming
and lemmatization in the clustering of Finnish text documents,”
Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM conference on Information and
knowledge management - CIKM '04, pp. 625–633, 2004.
[22] A. Samir and Z. Lahbib, “Stemming and lemmatization for
information retrieval systems in Amazigh language,”
Communications in Computer and Information Science, pp. 222–233,
2018.
[23] I. Zeroual and A. Lakhouaja, “Arabic information retrieval:
Stemming or lemmatization?,” 2017 Intelligent Systems and
Computer Vision (ISCV), pp. 1–6, 2017.
[24] T. Mardiana, T. Bharata Adji, and I. Hidayah, “Stemming influence
on similarity detection of abstract written in Indonesia,”
TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and
Control), vol. 14, no. 1, p. 219, 2016.
[25] M. Naili, A. H. Chaibi, and H. H. Ben Ghezala, “Comparative study
of arabic stemming algorithms for topic identification,” Procedia
Computer Science, vol. 159, pp. 794–802, 2019.
[26] H. A. Almuzaini and A. M. Azmi, “Impact of stemming and word
embedding on deep learning-based Arabic text categorization,” IEEE
Access, vol. 8, pp. 127913–127928, 2020.
[27] D. Khyani, B. S. Siddhartha, N. M. Niveditha, and B. M. Divya, “An
Interpretation of Lemmatization and Stemming in Natural Language
Processing,” Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and
Technology, 2021.
[28] S. Pradha, M. N. Halgamuge, and N. Tran Quoc Vinh, “Effective text
data preprocessing technique for sentiment analysis in social media
data,” 2019 11th International Conference on Knowledge and
Systems Engineering (KSE), pp. 1–8, 2019.
[29] L. Hickman, S. Thapa, L. Tay, M. Cao, and P. Srinivasan, “Text
preprocessing for text mining in Organizational Research: Review
and recommendations,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 114–146, 2022.
[30] V. Balakrishnan, N. Humaidi, and E. Lloyd-Yemoh, “Improving
document relevancy using integrated language modeling techniques,”
Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 45–55,
2016.
[31] S. Pereira, A. Névéol, G. Kerdelhué, E. Serrot, M. Joubert, and S. J.
Darmoni, “Using multi-terminology indexing for the assignment of
MeSH descriptors to health resources in a French online catalogue,”
AMIA annual symposium Proceeding, p. 586, 2008.
[32] E. Al-Shammari and J. Lin, “A novel Arabic lemmatization
algorithm,” Proceedings of the second workshop on Analytics for
noisy unstructured text data - AND '08, pp. 113–118, 2008.
[33] M. Konkol and M. Konopík, “Named entity recognition for highly
inflectional languages: Effects of various lemmatization and
stemming approaches,” Text, Speech and Dialogue, pp. 267–274,
2014.