Concordance

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

tech,2-8-J05-1003,bq	original <term> model </term> . The new <term>	model	</term> achieved 89.75 % <term> F-measure </term>	#8837 The newmodel achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model’s score of 88.2%.
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.
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.
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).
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%.
other,7-2-J05-1003,bq	<term> parser </term> produces a set of <term>	candidate parses	</term> for each input <term> sentence </term>	#8670 The base parser produces a set ofcandidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.
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.
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).
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,26-4-J05-1003,bq	, without concerns about how these <term>	features	</term> interact or overlap and without the	#8736 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,45-4-J05-1003,bq	generative model </term> which takes these <term>	features	</term> into account . We introduce a new	#8755 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,4-4-J05-1003,bq	</term> as evidence . The strength of our <term>	approach	</term> is that it allows a <term> tree </term>	#8714 The strength of ourapproach 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 these features into account.
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,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,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,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,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.
other,23-7-J05-1003,bq	evidence from an additional 500,000 <term>	features	</term> over <term> parse trees </term> that	#8822 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,8-10-J05-1003,bq	significant efficiency gains for the new <term>	algorithm	</term> over the obvious <term> implementation	#8895 Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the newalgorithm over the obvious implementation of the boosting approach.
tech,2-2-J05-1003,bq	probabilistic parser </term> . The base <term>	parser	</term> produces a set of <term> candidate	#8665 The baseparser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses.


	in Help