Modeling word burstiness using the Dirichlet distribution

ICML 2005 - Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 545-552

  Madsen, Rasmus E ^a   Kauchak, David ^b   Elkan, Charles ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIRICHLET COMPOUND MULTINOMIAL MODEL (DCM); DIRICHLET DISTRIBUTION; STANDARD DOCUMENT;

DATABASE SYSTEMS; HEURISTIC METHODS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 31844437086     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1102351.1102420     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Aizawa, A. (2003). An information-theoretic perspective of tf-idf measures. Information Processing and Management, 39, 45-65.
2. Apte, C., Damerau, F. J., & Weiss, S. M. (1994). Automated learning of decision rules for text categorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 233-251.
3. Blei, D., Ng, A., & Jordan, M. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993-1022.
4. Church, K. W., & Gale, W. A. (1995). Poisson mixtures. Natural Language Engineering, 1, 163-190.
5. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Landauer, T., Fumas, G., & Harshman, R. (1990), Indexing by latent semantic analysis, Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 41, 391-407.
6. Hofmann, T. (1999). Probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI). Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 50-57). Berkeley, California: ACM.
7. Jansche, M. (2003). Parametric models of linguistic count data. 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 288-295). Sapporo, Japan.
8. Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28, 11-21.
9. Katz, S. M. (1996). Distribution of content words and phrases in text and language modelling. Natural Language Engineering, 2, 15-59.
10. Lewis, D. D. (1998). Naive (Bayes) at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. Proceedings of ECML-98, 10th European Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 4-15). Chemnitz, Germany: Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
11. McCallum, A., & Nigam, K. (1998). A comparison of event models for naive Bayes text classification. AAAI/ICML-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization (pp. 41-48). AAAI Press.
12. McCallum, A. K. (1996). Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text retrieval, classification and clustering. www.cs.cmu.edu/~mccallum/bow.
13. Minka, T. (2003). Estimating a Dirichlet distribution. www.stat.cmu.edu/~minka/papers/dirichlet.
14. Rennie, J. D. M., Shih, L., Tee van, J., & Karger, D. R. (2003). Tackling the poor assumptions of naive Bayes text classifiers. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 616-623). Washington, D.C., US: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, US.
15. Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18, 613-620.
16. Sebastiani, F. (2002). Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34, 1-47.
17. Teevan, J., & Karger, D. R. (2003). Empirical development of an exponential probabilistic model for text retrieval: Using textual analysis to build a better model. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '03) (pp. 18-25). Toronto, CA.
18. Zipf, G. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley.