J02-2003 performance of the estimation method , a pseudo-disambiguation task is used , together with
E12-1038 compared PONG to . A test set for the pseudo-disambiguation task task consists of tuples
J02-2003 provide superior performance on a pseudo-disambiguation task , compared with two alternative
E03-1034 . It is also more natural than pseudo-disambiguation which relies on artificially
D14-1004 performance is evaluated on a pseudo-disambiguation task , on which it is shown to
D14-1004 A quantitative evaluation on a pseudo-disambiguation task shows that our models achieve
D14-1004 quantitatively evaluated using a pseudo-disambiguation task ( Rooth et al. , 1999 )
D14-1004 from the two-way and three-way pseudo-disambiguation task . The models are evaluated
D14-1004 performance is evaluated on a pseudo-disambiguation task , on which it is shown to
J02-2003 Resnik and Li and Abe , using a pseudo-disambiguation task . Our method outperforms
E12-1038 state-of-the-art baseline in a pseudo-disambiguation task , but lower coverage and
J02-2003 estimation methods used in the pseudo-disambiguation experiments , and Section 7 presents
C00-2094 evaluated our resolution methods on a pseudo-disambiguation task sinlilar to that used in
H05-1051 Pseudo-disambiguation In order to perform pseudo-disambiguation the unmodified collection acts
E12-1038 selectional preferences . To do the pseudo-disambiguation task , DEP compares the frequencies
J02-2003 2001 ) to have some impact on the pseudo-disambiguation task , but only with certain
E12-1038 ) . 4.7 Error analysis In the pseudo-disambiguation task of choosing which of two
D14-1111 acquisition , since the design of the pseudo-disambiguation experiments is taken from the
J02-2003 conservative test is better suited to the pseudo-disambiguation task , since it results in a
J02-2003 Diana McCarthy for suggesting the pseudo-disambiguation task and providing the MDL software
hide detail