Concordance

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

tech,1-7-J05-1003,bq	Street Journal treebank </term> . The <term>	method	</term> combined the <term> log-likelihood </term>	#8800 Themethod 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 original model.
tech,8-12-J05-1003,bq	experiments in this article are on <term>	natural language parsing ( NLP )	</term> , the <term> approach </term> should	#8944 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.
tech,2-3-J05-1003,bq	these <term> parses </term> . A second <term>	model	</term> then attempts to improve upon this	#8691 A secondmodel then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additional features of the tree as evidence.
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.
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%.
other,37-4-J05-1003,bq	overlap and without the need to define a <term>	derivation	</term> or a <term> generative model </term>	#8747 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.
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.
tech,4-5-J05-1003,bq	</term> into account . We introduce a new <term>	method	</term> for the <term> reranking task </term>	#8763 We introduce a newmethod for the reranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
tech,3-6-J05-1003,bq	al. ( 1998 ) </term> . We apply the <term>	boosting method	</term> to <term> parsing </term> the <term> Wall	#8789 We apply theboosting method to parsing the Wall Street Journal treebank.
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.
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%.
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.
other,24-2-J05-1003,bq	initial <term> ranking </term> of these <term>	parses	</term> . A second <term> model </term> then	#8687 The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of theseparses.
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,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.
tech,9-9-J05-1003,bq	a new <term> algorithm </term> for the <term>	boosting approach	</term> which takes advantage of the <term>	#8870 The article also introduces a new algorithm for theboosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of the feature space in the parsing data.
tech,6-9-J05-1003,bq	The article also introduces a new <term>	algorithm	</term> for the <term> boosting approach </term>	#8867 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,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.
tech,21-11-J05-1003,bq	simplicity and efficiency — to work on <term>	feature selection methods	</term> within <term> log-linear ( maximum-entropy	#8926 We argue that the method is an appealing alternative—in terms of both simplicity and efficiency—to work onfeature selection methods within log-linear (maximum-entropy) models.
tech,16-12-J05-1003,bq	language parsing ( NLP ) </term> , the <term>	approach	</term> should be applicable to many other	#8952 Although the experiments in this article are on natural language parsing (NLP), theapproach 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.


	in Help