Adapting the Naive Bayes Classifier to Rank Procedural Texts

  • Ling Yin
  • Richard Power
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3936)

Abstract

This paper presents a machine-learning approach for ranking web documents according to the proportion of procedural text they contain. By ‘procedural text’ we refer to ordered lists of steps, which are very common in some instructional genres such as online manuals. Our initial training corpus is built up by applying some simple heuristics to select documents from a large collection and contains only a few documents with a large proportion of procedural texts. We adapt the Naive Bayes classifier to better fit this less than ideal training corpus. This adapted model is compared with several other classifiers in ranking procedural texts using different sets of features and is shown to perform well when only highly distinctive features are used.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke, C., Cormack, G., Laszlo, M., Lynam, T., Terra, E.: The Impact of Corpus Size on Question Answering Performance. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in IR, Tampere, Finland (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freund, Y., Mason, L.: The Alternating Decision Tree Learning Algorithm. In: Proceeding of the Sixteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, Bled, Slovenia, pp. 124–133 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John, G., Langley, P.: Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 338–345. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelly, D., Murdock, V., Yuan, X.J., Croft, W.B., Belkin, N.J.: Features of Documents Relevant to Task- and Fact-Oriented Questions. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2002), McLean, VA, pp. 645–647 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santini, M.: A Shallow Approach to Syntactic Feature Extraction for Genre Classification. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Colloquium for the UK Special Interest Group for Computational Linguistics (CLUK 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwitter, R., Rinaldi, F., Clematide, S.: The Importance of How-Questions in Technical Domains. In: Question-Answering workshop of TALN 2004, Fez, Morocco (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sebastiani, F.: Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorisation. ACM Computing Surveys 34(1), 1–47 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stricker, M., Vichot, F., Dreyfus, G., Wolinski, F.: Two Steps Feature Selection and Neural Network Classification for the TREC-8 Routing. CoRR cs. CL/0007016 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takechi, M., Tokunaga, T., Matsumoto, Y., Tanaka, H.: Feature Selection in Categorizing Procedural Expressions. In: The Sixth International Workshop on Information Retrieval with Asian Languages (IRAL 2003), pp. 49–56 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Y.: An Evaluation of Statistical Approaches to Text Categorization. Journal of Information Retrieval 1(1/2), 67–88 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang, Y., Liu, X.: A Re-Examination of Text Categorization Methods. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 1999), pp. 42–49 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yin, L.: A Two-Stage Approach to Retrieve Answers for How-To Questions. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Student session, Trento, Italy (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ling Yin
    • 1
  • Richard Power
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Language Technology Group (NLTG)University of BrightonBrightonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and ComputingThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations