We examine how differences in language models, learned by different data-driven systems performing the same NLP task, can be exploited to yield a higher accuracy than the best individual system. We do this by means of experiments involving the task of morphosyntactic word class tagging, on the basis of three different tagged corpora. Four well-known tagger generators (hidden Markov model, memory-based, transformation rules, and maximum entropy) are trained on the same corpus data. After comparison, their outputs are combined using several voting strategies and second-stage classifiers. All combination taggers outperform their best component. The reduction in error rate varies with the material in question, but can be as high as 24.3% with the LOB corpus.
In this paper we examine how the differences in modelling between different data driven systems performing the same NLP task can be exploited to yield a higher accuracy than the best individual system. We do this by means of an experiment involving the task of morpho-syntactic wordclass tagging. Four well-known tagger generators (Hidden Markov Model, Memory-Based, Transformation Rules and Maximum Entropy) are trained on the same corpus data. After comparison, their outputs are combined using several voting strategies and second stage classifiers. All combination taggers outperform their best component, with the best combination showing a 19.1% lower error rate than the best individual tagger.
In this paper we examine how the differences in modelling between different data driven systems performing the same NLP task can be exploited to yield a higher accuracy than the best individual system. We do this by means of an experiment involving the task of morpho-syntactic wordclass tagging. Four well-known tagger generators (Hidden Markov Model, Memory-Based, Transformation Rules and Maximum Entropy) are trained on the same corpus data. After comparison, their outputs are combined using several voting strategies and second stage classifiers. All combination taggers outperform their best component, with the best combination showing a 19.1% lower error rate than the best individual tagger.
Abstract. We show that in language learning, contrary to received wisdom, keeping exceptional training instances in memory can be beneficial for generalization accuracy. We investigate this phenomenon empirically on a selection of benchmark natural language processing tasks: grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, part-of-speech tagging, prepositional-phrase attachment, and base noun phrase chunking. In a first series of experiments we combine memory-based learning with training set editing techniques, in which instances are edited based on their typicality and class prediction strength. Results show that editing exceptional instances (with low typicality or low class prediction strength) tends to harm generalization accuracy. In a second series of experiments we compare memory-based learning and decision-tree learning methods on the same selection of tasks, and find that decision-tree learning often performs worse than memory-based learning. Moreover, the decrease in performance can be linked to the degree of abstraction from exceptions (i.e., pruning or eagerness). We provide explanations for both results in terms of the properties of the natural language processing tasks and the learning algorithms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.