Abstract | However, their model has a high order of time complexity , and thus cannot be applied in practice. |
Abstract | In this work, we develop a much faster model whose time complexity is linear in the number of sentences. |
Bottom-up tree-building | 2The time complexity will be reduced to 0(M2n2), if we |
Introduction | greedy bottom-up strategy, we develop a discourse parser with a time complexity linear in the total number of sentences in the document. |
Linear time complexity | Here we analyze the time complexity of each component in our discourse parser, to quantitatively demonstrate the time efficiency of our model. |
Linear time complexity | overall time complexity to perform intra-sentential parsing is The reason is the following. |
Linear time complexity | The time complexity for performing forward-backward inference on the single chain is 0((mk — i) x M2) = 0(mk — i), where the constant M is the size of the output vocabulary. |
Related work | Due to the 0(n3) time complexity , where n is the number |
Comparison to SimRank | 8) have time complexity (9(n3) or — if we want to take the higher efficiency of computation for sparse graphs into account —(9(dn2) where n is the number of nodes and d the |
Comparison to SimRank | If d < k, then the time complexity of CoSimRank is (9(k2n). |
Comparison to SimRank | Thus, we have reduced SimRank’s cubic time complexity to a quadratic time complexity for CoSimRank or — assuming that the average degree d does not depend on n — SimRank’s quadratic time complexity to linear time complexity for the case of computing few similarities. |
Introduction | Unfortunately, SimRank has time complexity (9(n3) (where n is the number of nodes in the graph) and therefore does not scale to the large graphs that are typical of NLP. |
Add arc <eC,ej> to GC with | Based on dependency structure, we are able to directly analyze the relations between the EDUs without worrying about the additional interior text spans, and apply the existing state-of-the-art dependency parsing techniques which have a relatively low time complexity . |
Discourse Dependency Parsing | It is well known that projective dependency parsing can be handled with the Eisner algorithm (1996) which is based on the bottom-up dynamic programming techniques with the time complexity of 0(n3). |
Discourse Dependency Parsing | (2005b), we adopt an efficient implementation of the Chu-Liu/Edmonds algorithm that is proposed by Tar-jan (1997) with O(n2) time complexity . |
Introduction | Third, to reduce the time complexity of the state-of-the-art constituency based parsing techniques, the approximate parsing approaches are prone to trap in local maximum. |
Conclusions | We discuss the theoretical time complexity of looking up extraction patterns in a large corpus of |
Memory-based pattern extraction | Figure 5: Time complexity of lookup operations for inputs of different sizes. |
Memory-based pattern extraction | Time complexity of lookups. |