Concordance

Query J05-1003 53 >
Negative filter NN 33 (1,538.5 per million)

tech,11-1-J05-1003,bq	which rerank the output of an existing <term>	probabilistic parser	</term> . The base <term> parser </term> produces	#8660 This article considers approaches which rerank the output of an existingprobabilistic parser.
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.
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.
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,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,19-4-J05-1003,bq	represented as an arbitrary set of <term>	features	</term> , without concerns about how these	#8729 The strength of our approach is that it allows a tree to be represented as an arbitrary set offeatures, 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,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.
tech,40-4-J05-1003,bq	define a <term> derivation </term> or a <term>	generative model	</term> which takes these <term> features </term>	#8750 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.
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,7-5-J05-1003,bq	introduce a new <term> method </term> for the <term>	reranking task	</term> , based on the <term> boosting approach	#8766 We introduce a new method for thereranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
tech,13-5-J05-1003,bq	reranking task </term> , based on the <term>	boosting approach	</term> to <term> ranking problems </term> described	#8772 We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on theboosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998).
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).
other,20-5-J05-1003,bq	ranking problems </term> described in <term>	Freund et al. ( 1998 )	</term> . We apply the <term> boosting method	#8779 We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described inFreund 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.
tech,6-6-J05-1003,bq	the <term> boosting method </term> to <term>	parsing	</term> the <term> Wall Street Journal treebank	#8792 We apply the boosting method toparsing the Wall Street Journal treebank.
lr-prod,8-6-J05-1003,bq	method </term> to <term> parsing </term> the <term>	Wall Street Journal treebank	</term> . The <term> method </term> combined	#8794 We apply the boosting method to parsing theWall Street Journal treebank.
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.
other,12-7-J05-1003,bq	<term> baseline model </term> ( that of <term>	Collins [ 1999 ]	</term> ) with evidence from an additional	#8811 The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that ofCollins [ 1999 ]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features over parse trees that were not included in the original model.
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.
other,25-7-J05-1003,bq	additional 500,000 <term> features </term> over <term>	parse trees	</term> that were not included in the original	#8824 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.


	in Help