The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Discriminative Reranking for Natural Language Parsing
Open accessAbstract
This article considers approaches which rerank the output of an existing probabilistic parser. The base parser produces a set of candidate parses for each input sentence, with associated probabilities that define an initial ranking of these parses. A second model then attempts to improve upon this initial ranking, using additional features of the tree as evidence. 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 these features into account. We introduce a new method for the reranking task, based on the boosting approach to ranking problems described in Freund et al. (1998). We apply the boosting method to parsing the Wall Street Journal treebank. The method combined the log-likelihood under a baseline model (that of Collins [1999]) with evidence from an additional 500,000 features over parse trees that were not included in the original model. The new model achieved 89.75% F-measure, a 13% relative decrease in F-measure error over the baseline model's score of 88.2%. The article also introduces a new algorithm for the boosting approach which takes advantage of the sparsity of the feature space in the parsing data. Experiments show significant efficiency gains for the new algorithm over the obvious implementation of the boosting approach. We argue that the method is an appealing alternative-in terms of both simplicity and efficiency-to work on feature selection methods within log-linear (maximum-entropy) models. Although the experiments in this article are on natural language parsing (NLP), the approach should be applicable to many other NLP problems which are naturally framed as ranking tasks, for example, speech recognition, machine translation, or natural language generation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
(1988) · Cited by 16,582
Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data
Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F. C. N. (2001) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 12,935
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1016218223 · Cited by 6,884
Valiant, L. G. (1984) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1968.1972 · Cited by 3,279
A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing
Berger, A. L., Pietra, V. J. D., & Pietra, S. A. D. (1996) · doi:10.5555/234285.234289 · Cited by 3,065
Improved boosting algorithms using confidence-rated predictions
Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (1998) · Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on Computational learning theory · doi:10.1145/279943.279960 · Cited by 2,547
Boosting the margin: a new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods
Bartlett, P., Freund, Y., Lee, W. S., & Schapire, R. E. (1998) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1024691352 · Cited by 2,306
BoosTexter: A Boosting-based System for Text Categorization
Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (2000) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007649029923 · Cited by 2,188
Cited by
(2015) · Cited by 2,857
Neural Network Methods for Natural Language Processing
Goldberg, Y. (2017) · Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02165-7 · Cited by 821
Effective self-training for parsing
McClosky, D., Charniak, E., & Johnson, M. (2006) · Proceedings of the main conference on Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics - · doi:10.3115/1220835.1220855 · Cited by 594
SpanNER: Named Entity Re-/Recognition as Span Prediction
Fu, J., Huang, X., & Liu, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.558 · Cited by 112
Effective use of prosody in parsing conversational speech
Kahn, J. G., Lease, M., Charniak, E., Johnson, M., & Ostendorf, M. (2005) · Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05 · doi:10.3115/1220575.1220605 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, M., & Koo, T.
- Venue
- Computational Linguistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-70
- ISSN
- 0891-2017 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9312
- OpenAlex
- W2121127625
- Cited by
- 710
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 66.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discriminative Reranking for Natural Language Parsing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/0891201053630273
- The paper
- Collins, M., & Koo, T. (2005). Discriminative Reranking for Natural Language Parsing. Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201053630273
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.