#8044The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associatedprobabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.
tech,6-9-J05-1003,ak
The article also introduces a new
<term>
algorithm
</term>
for the
<term>
boosting approach
</term>
#8232The article also introduces a newalgorithm for the boosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of the feature space in the parsing data.
other,10-4-J05-1003,ak
of our approach is that it allows a
<term>
tree
</term>
to be represented as an arbitrary
#8085The 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.
model,40-4-J05-1003,ak
define a
<term>
derivation
</term>
or a
<term>
generative model
</term>
which takes these
<term>
features
</term>
#8115The strength of our approach is that it allows a tree 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 agenerative model which takes these features into account.
model,2-8-J05-1003,ak
original
<term>
model
</term>
. The new
<term>
model
</term>
achieved 89.75 %
<term>
F-measure
</term>
#8202The newmodel achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
model,25-11-J05-1003,ak
feature selection methods
</term>
within
<term>
log-linear ( maximum-entropy ) models
</term>
. Although the experiments in this
#8295We argue that the method is an appealing alternative—in terms of both simplicity and efficiency—to work on feature selection methods withinlog-linear ( maximum-entropy ) models.
other,7-5-J05-1003,ak
We introduce a new method for the
<term>
reranking task
</term>
, based on the
<term>
boosting approach
#8131We introduce a new method for thereranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
tech,8-12-J05-1003,ak
experiments in this article are on
<term>
natural language parsing ( NLP )
</term>
, the approach should be applicable
#8309Although the experiments in this article are onnatural language parsing ( NLP ), the approach should be applicable to many other NLP problems which are naturally framed as ranking tasks, for example, speech recognition, machine translation, or natural language generation.
measure(ment),14-8-J05-1003,ak
</term>
, a 13 % relative decrease in
<term>
F-measure error
</term>
over the
<term>
baseline model ’s
</term>
#8214The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease inF-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
other,19-9-J05-1003,ak
of the
<term>
sparsity
</term>
of the
<term>
feature space
</term>
in the
<term>
parsing data
</term>
.
#8245The article also introduces a new algorithm for the boosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of thefeature space in the parsing data.
tech,15-10-J05-1003,ak
the obvious implementation of the
<term>
boosting approach
</term>
. We argue that the method is an
#8267Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the new algorithm over the obvious implementation of theboosting approach.
tech,39-12-J05-1003,ak
,
<term>
speech recognition
</term>
,
<term>
machine translation
</term>
, or
<term>
natural language generation
#8340Although the experiments in this article are on natural language parsing (NLP), the approach should be applicable to many other NLP problems which are naturally framed as ranking tasks, for example, speech recognition,machine translation, or natural language generation.
tech,3-6-J05-1003,ak
Freund et al. ( 1998 ) . We apply the
<term>
boosting method
</term>
to parsing the
<term>
Wall Street Journal
#8154We apply theboosting method to parsing the Wall Street Journal treebank.
other,7-2-J05-1003,ak
base parser
</term>
produces a set of
<term>
candidate parses
</term>
for each
<term>
input sentence
</term>
#8035The base parser produces a set ofcandidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.
tech,11-1-J05-1003,ak
which rerank the output of an existing
<term>
probabilistic parser
</term>
. The
<term>
base parser
</term>
produces
#8025This article considers approaches which rerank the output of an existingprobabilistic parser.
model,34-7-J05-1003,ak
were not included in the original
<term>
model
</term>
. The new
<term>
model
</term>
achieved
#8198The 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.
measure(ment),6-8-J05-1003,ak
<term>
model
</term>
achieved 89.75 %
<term>
F-measure
</term>
, a 13 % relative decrease in
<term>
#8206The new model achieved 89.75%F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
tech,13-5-J05-1003,ak
reranking task
</term>
, based on the
<term>
boosting approach to ranking problems
</term>
described in Freund et al. ( 1998
#8137We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on theboosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
tech,8-10-J05-1003,ak
significant efficiency gains for the new
<term>
algorithm
</term>
over the obvious implementation of
#8260Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the newalgorithm over the obvious implementation of the boosting approach.
tech,43-12-J05-1003,ak
<term>
machine translation
</term>
, or
<term>
natural language generation
</term>
. We present a novel method for discovering
#8344Although the experiments in this article are on natural language parsing (NLP), the approach should be applicable to many other NLP problems which are naturally framed as ranking tasks, for example, speech recognition, machine translation, ornatural language generation.