| tech,15-10-J05-1003,ak | the obvious implementation of the <term> | boosting approach | </term> . We argue that the method is an | #8267 Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the new algorithm over the obvious implementation of theboosting approach. | |
| 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. | |
| other,14-3-J05-1003,ak | <term> ranking </term> , using additional <term> | features | </term> of the <term> tree </term> as evidence | #8068 A second model then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additionalfeatures of the tree as evidence. | |
| 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. | |
| 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,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. | |
| 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> | #8214 The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease inF-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%. | |
| 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,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,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. | |
| 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,11-2-J05-1003,ak | <term> candidate parses </term> for each <term> | input sentence | </term> , with associated <term> probabilities | #8039 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for eachinput sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses. | |
| tech,1-2-J05-1003,ak | <term> probabilistic parser </term> . The <term> | base parser | </term> produces a set of <term> candidate | #8029 Thebase parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities 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> | #8232 The 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 | #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. | |
| model,2-8-J05-1003,ak | original <term> model </term> . The new <term> | model | </term> achieved 89.75 % <term> F-measure </term> | #8202 The newmodel achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%. | |
| model,40-4-J05-1003,ak | define a <term> derivation </term> or a <term> | generative model | </term> which takes these <term> features </term> | #8115 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 agenerative model which takes these features into account. | |
| tech,11-1-J05-1003,ak | which rerank the output of an existing <term> | probabilistic parser | </term> . The <term> base parser </term> produces | #8025 This article considers approaches which rerank the output of an existingprobabilistic parser. | |
| 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. |
