Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
courses:rg:2013:dep-tree-kernels [2013/03/04 22:28] popel pdf link |
courses:rg:2013:dep-tree-kernels [2013/03/12 11:14] popel |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* "US troops that moved towards Baghdad were seen by Bob" | * "US troops that moved towards Baghdad were seen by Bob" | ||
You want to check the relation between entities " | You want to check the relation between entities " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Answers ====== | ||
+ | - Depends on the exact definition of smallest common subtree, but keep in mind you need at least some non-trivial " | ||
+ | - d(a) is defined as the last member of the sequence - the first member + 1. If the sequence is contiguous (no missing indices) it can be shown (eg. by induction) that the equation holds, unless some of the indices is repeated. Note that e.g. a sequence (1,1,1) is valid according to the definition of sequence < | ||
+ | - Depends on how you treat " | ||
+ | * '' | ||
+ | * '' | ||
+ | - First this depends on the previous one (the " | ||
+ | * < | ||
+ | * When counting K_1 you leave out the < | ||
+ | - When you regard bag-of-words kernel as number of matching forms then K_2 is zero whereas K_1 is positive | ||
+ | - It was argued that we'll probably end up with different relation-args (//troops// being ARG_B in the first sentence, but ARG_A in the second sentence), thus there will be no match | ||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Misc ====== | ||
+ | - There was some discussion what are the features for bag-of-words kernel (just presence of a word in sentence?) | ||
+ | - Feature selection, mainly the relation-args feature | ||
+ | - "Two level" classification, |