| model,34-7-J05-1003,ak | were not included in the original <term> | model | </term> . The new <term> model </term> achieved | #8198 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. | |
| other,17-3-J05-1003,ak | additional <term> features </term> of the <term> | tree | </term> as evidence . The strength of our | #8071 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additional features of thetree as evidence. | |
| other,30-12-J05-1003,ak | </term> which are naturally framed as <term> | ranking tasks | </term> , for example , <term> speech recognition | #8331 Although 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 asranking tasks, for example, speech recognition, machine translation, or natural language generation. | |
| tech,39-12-J05-1003,ak | , <term> speech recognition </term> , <term> | machine translation | </term> , or <term> natural language generation | #8340 Although 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. | |
| other,37-4-J05-1003,ak | overlap and without the need to define a <term> | derivation | </term> or a <term> generative model </term> | #8112 The 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 aderivation or a generative model which takes these features into account. | |
| other,45-4-J05-1003,ak | generative model </term> which takes these <term> | features | </term> into account . We introduce a new | #8120 The 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 a generative model which takes thesefeatures into account. | |
| 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 | #8137 We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on theboosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998). | |
| tech,9-9-J05-1003,ak | a new <term> algorithm </term> for the <term> | boosting approach | </term> which takes advantage of the <term> | #8235 The article also introduces a new algorithm for theboosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of the feature space in the parsing data. | |
| model,18-8-J05-1003,ak | <term> F-measure error </term> over the <term> | baseline model ’s | </term> score of 88.2 % . The article also | #8218 The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over thebaseline model ’s score of 88.2%. | |
| tech,23-12-J05-1003,ak | should be applicable to many other <term> | NLP problems | </term> which are naturally framed as <term> | #8324 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. | |
| tech,8-12-J05-1003,ak | experiments in this article are on <term> | natural language parsing ( NLP ) | </term> , the approach should be applicable | #8309 Although 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. | |
| other,23-7-J05-1003,ak | evidence from an additional 500,000 <term> | features | </term> over <term> parse trees </term> that | #8187 The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that of Collins [1999]) with evidence from an additional 500,000features over parse trees that were not included in the original model. | |
| tech,36-12-J05-1003,ak | ranking tasks </term> , for example , <term> | speech recognition | </term> , <term> machine translation </term> | #8337 Although 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. | |
| other,10-4-J05-1003,ak | of our approach is that it allows a <term> | tree | </term> to be represented as an arbitrary | #8085 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,16-2-J05-1003,ak | input sentence </term> , with associated <term> | probabilities | </term> that define an initial <term> ranking | #8044 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associatedprobabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses. | |
| other,25-7-J05-1003,ak | additional 500,000 <term> features </term> over <term> | parse trees | </term> that were not included in the original | #8189 The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that of Collins [1999]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features overparse trees that were not included in the original model. | |
| tech,43-12-J05-1003,ak | <term> machine translation </term> , or <term> | natural language generation | </term> . We present a novel method for discovering | #8344 Although 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. | |
| other,23-9-J05-1003,ak | the <term> feature space </term> in the <term> | parsing data | </term> . Experiments show significant efficiency | #8249 The article also introduces a new algorithm for the boosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of the feature space in theparsing data. | |
| other,26-4-J05-1003,ak | , without concerns about how these <term> | features | </term> interact or overlap and without the | #8101 The strength of our approach is that it allows a tree to be represented as an arbitrary set of features, without concerns about how thesefeatures interact or overlap and without the need to define a derivation or a generative model which takes these features into account. | |
| other,10-3-J05-1003,ak | attempts to improve upon this initial <term> | ranking | </term> , using additional <term> features </term> | #8064 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initialranking, using additional features of the tree as evidence. |
