Concordance

Query J05-1003 53 >
Multilevel Sort 53 >
Random sample 53 (2,471.0 per million)

lr-prod,8-6-J05-1003,bq	method </term> to <term> parsing </term> the <term>	Wall Street Journal treebank	</term> . The <term> method </term> combined	#8794 We apply the boosting method to parsing theWall Street Journal treebank.
measure(ment),14-8-J05-1003,bq	</term> , a 13 % relative decrease in <term>	F-measure	</term> error over the <term> baseline model	#8849 The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease inF-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
measure(ment),18-8-J05-1003,bq	<term> F-measure </term> error over the <term>	baseline model ’s score	</term> of 88.2 % . The article also introduces	#8853 The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over thebaseline model ’s score of 88.2%.
measure(ment),6-8-J05-1003,bq	<term> model </term> achieved 89.75 % <term>	F-measure	</term> , a 13 % relative decrease in <term>	#8841 The new model achieved 89.75%F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
model,34-7-J05-1003,bq	were not included in the original <term>	model	</term> . The new <term> model </term> achieved	#8833 The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that of Collins [1999]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features over parse trees that were not included in the originalmodel.
model,7-7-J05-1003,bq	<term> log-likelihood </term> under a <term>	baseline model	</term> ( that of <term> Collins [ 1999 ] </term>	#8806 The method combined the log-likelihood under abaseline model (that of Collins [1999]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features over parse trees that were not included in the original model.
other,10-3-J05-1003,bq	attempts to improve upon this initial <term>	ranking	</term> , using additional <term> features </term>	#8699 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initialranking, using additional features of the tree as evidence.
other,10-4-J05-1003,bq	approach </term> is that it allows a <term>	tree	</term> to be represented as an arbitrary	#8720 The strength of our approach is that it allows atree to be represented as an arbitrary set of features, without concerns about how these features interact or overlap and without the need to define a derivation or a generative model which takes these features into account.
other,12-10-J05-1003,bq	<term> algorithm </term> over the obvious <term>	implementation	</term> of the <term> boosting approach </term>	#8899 Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the new algorithm over the obviousimplementation of the boosting approach.
other,12-2-J05-1003,bq	candidate parses </term> for each input <term>	sentence	</term> , with associated <term> probabilities	#8675 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each inputsentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.
other,12-7-J05-1003,bq	<term> baseline model </term> ( that of <term>	Collins [ 1999 ]	</term> ) with evidence from an additional	#8811 The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that ofCollins [ 1999 ]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features over parse trees that were not included in the original model.
other,14-3-J05-1003,bq	<term> ranking </term> , using additional <term>	features	</term> of the <term> tree </term> as evidence	#8703 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additionalfeatures of the tree as evidence.
other,16-2-J05-1003,bq	<term> sentence </term> , with associated <term>	probabilities	</term> that define an initial <term> ranking	#8679 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associatedprobabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.
other,16-5-J05-1003,bq	the <term> boosting approach </term> to <term>	ranking problems	</term> described in <term> Freund et al. (	#8775 We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on the boosting approach toranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
other,16-9-J05-1003,bq	</term> which takes advantage of the <term>	sparsity of the feature space	</term> in the <term> parsing data </term> .	#8877 The article also introduces a new algorithm for the boosting approach which takes advantage of thesparsity of the feature space in the parsing data.
other,17-3-J05-1003,bq	additional <term> features </term> of the <term>	tree	</term> as evidence . The strength of our	#8706 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additional features of thetree as evidence.
other,19-4-J05-1003,bq	represented as an arbitrary set of <term>	features	</term> , without concerns about how these	#8729 The strength of our approach is that it allows a tree to be represented as an arbitrary set offeatures, without concerns about how these features interact or overlap and without the need to define a derivation or a generative model which takes these features into account.
other,20-5-J05-1003,bq	ranking problems </term> described in <term>	Freund et al. ( 1998 )	</term> . We apply the <term> boosting method	#8779 We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described inFreund et al. ( 1998 ).
other,21-2-J05-1003,bq	probabilities </term> that define an initial <term>	ranking	</term> of these <term> parses </term> . A second	#8684 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initialranking of these parses.
other,23-12-J05-1003,bq	should be applicable to many other <term>	NLP problems	</term> which are naturally framed as <term>	#8959 Although the experiments in this article are on natural language parsing (NLP), the approach should be applicable to many otherNLP problems which are naturally framed as ranking tasks, for example, speech recognition, machine translation, or natural language generation.


	in Help