Analyzing the Effectiveness and Applicability of Co-training

International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings

Volumn 2000-January, Issue , 2000, Pages 86-93

  Nigam, Kamal ^a   Ghani, Rayid ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

co training; expectation maximization; learning with labeled and unlabeled data; text classification

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE; SUPERVISED LEARNING; TEXT PROCESSING;

CO-TRAINING; CO-TRAINING ALGORITHM; DATA ALGORITHM; DISJOINT SETS; EMBEDDED CLASSIFIERS; EXPECTATION MAXIMIZATION; LABELED AND UNLABELED DATA; LEARNING TASKS; LEARNING WITH LABELED AND UNLABELED DATA; TEXT CLASSIFICATION;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 85136905861     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/354756.354805     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. A. Blum and T. Mitchell. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In Proceedings of COLT '98, 1998.
2. C. Buckley, A. Singhal, M. Mitra, and G. Salton. New retrieval approaches using SMART: TREC 4. In Proceedings of the TREC 4 Conference, 1996.
3. D. Cohn, Z. Ghahramani, and M. Jordan. Active learning with statistical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:129-145, 1996.
4. M. Collins and Y. Singer. Unsupervised models for named entity classification. In Proceedings of EMNLP*99, 1999.
5. M. Craven and S. Slattery. Relational learning with statistical predicate invention: Better models for hypertext. Machine Learning. To app ear.
6. W. B. Croft and D. J. Harper. Using probabili stic models of document retrieval without relevance information. Journal of Documentation, 35:285-295, 1979.
7. A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1):1-38, 1977.
8. P. Domingos and M. Pazzani. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning, 29:103-130, 1997.
9. P.-O. Fjallstrom. Algorithms for graph partitioning: A survey. Linkoping Electronic Atricles in Computer and Information Science, 3, 1998.
10. T. Jaakkola and D. Haussler. Exploitin g generative models in discriminative classi ers. In Advances in NIPS 11, 1999.
11. T. Joachims. A probabilis tic analysis of the Ro cchio algorithm with TFIDF for text categorization. In Proceedings of ICML '97, 1997.
12. T. Joachims. Transductive inference for text classification using supp ort vector machines. In Proceedings of ICML '99, 1999.
13. D. D. Lewis. Naive (Bayes) at forty: The indep endence assumption in information retrieval. In Proceedings of ECML-98, 1998.
14. A. McCallum and K. Nigam. A comparison of event models for naive Bayes text classi catio n. In AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, 1998. Tech. rep. WS-98-05, AAAI Press. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/mccallum.
15. A. McCallum and K. Nigam. Employing EM in pool-based active learning for text classification. In Proceedings of ICML '98, 1998.
16. K. Nigam, A. McCallum, S. Thrun, and T. Mitchell. Text classification from lab eled and unlab eled documents using EM. Machine Learning, 39(2/3):103-134, 2000.
17. E. Rilo and R. Jones. Learning dictionaries for information extraction using multi-level boot-strapping. In Proceedings of AAAI-99, 1999.
18. D. Yarowsky. Unsup ervised word sense disambiguati on rivaling sup ervised metho ds. In Proceedings of ACL-95, 1995.