Cited by 1,543Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

Domain adaptation with structural correspondence learning

Open access
Blitzer, John, McDonald, Ryan, Pereira, Fernando·2006·Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - EMNLP '06

Abstract

Discriminative learning methods are widely used in natural language processing. These methods work best when their training and test data are drawn from the same distribution. For many NLP tasks, however, we are confronted with new domains in which labeled data is scarce or non-existent. In such cases, we seek to adapt existing models from a resource-rich source domain to a resource-poor target domain. We introduce structural correspondence learning to automatically induce correspondences among features from different domains. We test our technique on part of speech tagging and show performance gains for varying amounts of source and target training data, as well as improvements in target domain parsing accuracy using our improved tagger.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3115/1610075.1610094

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • McNemar's test is appropriate for binary classification tasks.

    “This test is appropriate for binary classification tasks, and has been indeed used in such NLP works (e.g.sentiment classificaiton, (Blitzer et al., 2006;Ziser and Reichart, 2017)).”

    From The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Testing Statistical Significance in Natural Language Processing (2018) · cites this paper as Blitzer et al., 2006

    The Empirical Results section (Figures 5–6; page not available) shows that Blitzer et al. used McNemar’s test to compare NLP systems. However, those results concern part-of-speech tagging, not sentiment classification, and the paper does not state that the test is appropriate for binary classification tasks. The binary classification problems in §3.2 are pivot predictors, not the task for which the reported McNemar tests were used. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. K. Crammer, Dekel O, J. Keshet, S. Shalev-Shwartz, and Y. Singer. 2006. Online passive-aggressive al- gorithms. JMLR, 7:551-585.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blitzer, J., McDonald, R., & Pereira, F.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - EMNLP '06
Published
2006
Pages
120
OpenAlex
W2158108973
Cited by
1,543
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 165 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 124 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 82
FWCI
19.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0205448)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (NBCHD-03-0010)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
domain adaptation, part-of-speech tagging, discriminative learning, natural language processing, dependency parsing

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