A sequential model for multi-class classification

Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2001

Volumn , Issue , 2001, Pages

  Even Zohar, Yair ^a   Roth, Dan ^a  

^a University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

CANDIDATE SETS; COMPUTATIONAL PROPERTIES; HIGH PROBABILITY; LEARNING METHODS; LEARNING MODELS; PART OF SPEECH TAGGING; PARTS-OF-SPEECH TAGGING; SEQUENTIAL LEARNING; SEQUENTIAL MODELING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 80053388408     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. L. E. Allwein, R. E. Schapire, and Y. Singer. 2000. Reducing multiclass to binary: a unifying approach for margin classifiers. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Machine Learning, pages 9-16.
2. E. Brill. 1995. Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part of speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21(4):543-565.
3. E. Charniak. 1993. Statistical Language Learning. MIT Press.
4. I. Dagan, L. Lee, and F. Pereira. 1999. Similarity-based models of word cooccurrence probabilities. Machine Learning, 34(1-3):43-69.
5. E. Dermatas and G. Kokkinakis. 1995. Automatic stochastic tagging of natural language texts. Computational Linguistics, 21(2):137-164.
6. T. G. Dietterich and G. Bakiri. 1995. Solving multiclass learning problems via error-correcting output codes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:263-286.
7. Y. Even-Zohar and D. Roth. 2000. A classification approach to word prediction. In NAALP 2000, pages 124-131.
8. W. A. Gale, K. W. Church, and D. Yarowsky. 1993. A method for disambiguating word senses in a large corpus. Computers and the Humanities, 26:415-439.
9. A. R. Golding and D. Roth. 1999. A Winnow based approach to context-sensitive spelling correction. Machine Learning, 34(1-3):107-130. Special Issue on Machine Learning and Natural Language.
10. A. R. Golding. 1995. A Bayesian hybrid method for context-sensitive spelling correction. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on very large corpora, ACL-95.
11. T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani. 1998. Classification by pairwise coupling. In Michael I. Jordan, Michael J. Kearns, and Sara A. Solla, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 10. The MIT Press.
12. G. Hinton. 2000. Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence. Technical Report GCNU TR 2000-004, University College London.
13. T. Kudoh and Y. Matsumoto. 2000. Use of support vector machines for chunk identification. In CoNLL, pages 142-147, Lisbon, Protugal.
14. L. Lee and F. Pereira. 1999. Distributional similarity models: Clustering vs. nearest neighbors. In ACL 99, pages 33-40.
15. L. Lee. 1999. Measure of distributional similarity. In ACL 99, pages 25-32.
16. V.I. Levenshtein. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. In Sov. Phys-Dokl, volume 10, pages 707-710.
17. S.E. Levinson, A. Ljolje, and L.G. Miller. 1990. Continuous speech recognition from phonetic transcription. In Speech and Natural Language Workshop, pages 190-199.
18. L. Mangu and E. Brill. 1997. Automatic rule acquisition for spelling correction. In Proc. of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 734-741.
19. A. Mikheev. 1997. Automatic rule induction for unknown word guessing. In Computational Linguistic, volume 23(3), pages 405-423.
20. T. M. Mitchell. 1997. Machine Learning. Mcgraw-Hill.
21. S. Murthy, S. Kasif, and S. Salzberg. 1994. A system for induction of oblique decision trees. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:1:1-33.
22. V. Punyakanok and D. Roth. 2001. The use of classifiers in sequential inference. In NIPS-13; The 2000 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
23. S. S. Rasoul and D. A. Landgrebe. 1991. A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21 (3):660-674.
24. D. Roth and D. Zelenko. 1998. Part of speech tagging using a network of linear separators. In COLING-ACL 98, The 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1136-1142.
25. D. Roth. 1998. Learning to resolve natural language ambiguities: A unified approach. In Proc. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 806-813.
26. D. Roth. 1999. Learning in natural language. In Proc. Int'l Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 898-904.
27. L-W. Teow and K-F. Loe. 2000. Handwritten digit recognition with a novel vision model that extracts linearly separable features. In CVPR'00, The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 76-81.
28. H. S. Wilf. 1994. generatingfunctionology. Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, second edition.
29. D. Yarowsky. 1994. Decision lists for lexical ambiguity resolution: application to accent restoration in Spanish and French. In Proc. of the Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 88-95.
30. J. Zavrel, W. Daelemans, and J. Veenstra. 1997. Resolving pp attachment ambiguities with memory based learning. In Computational Natural Language Learning, Madrid, Spain, July.
31. J. M. Zelle and R. J. Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proc. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1050-1055.