Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: a Response to Krahmer et al

Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Ielka van der Sluis, Richard Power

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.'s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. WE observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from "normal" (i.e., non-semantically-balanced) corpora.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)842-845
Number of pages4
JournalCognitive Science
Volume36
Issue number5
Early online date1 Jun 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2012

Fingerprint

Cognitive Science
Learning
Experiments

Keywords

  • reference production
  • evaluation experiments
  • Letter to the Editor

Cite this

van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., van der Sluis, I., & Power, R. (2012). Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: a Response to Krahmer et al. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 842-845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01259.x

Assessing the Incremental Algorithm : a Response to Krahmer et al. / van Deemter, Kees; Gatt, Albert; van der Sluis, Ielka; Power, Richard .

In: Cognitive Science, Vol. 36, No. 5, 07.2012, p. 842-845.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

van Deemter, K, Gatt, A, van der Sluis, I & Power, R 2012, 'Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: a Response to Krahmer et al', Cognitive Science, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 842-845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01259.x
van Deemter, Kees ; Gatt, Albert ; van der Sluis, Ielka ; Power, Richard . / Assessing the Incremental Algorithm : a Response to Krahmer et al. In: Cognitive Science. 2012 ; Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 842-845.
@article{b6089ef5c6bb410898e75e9df6990c36,
title = "Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: a Response to Krahmer et al",
abstract = "This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.'s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. WE observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from {"}normal{"} (i.e., non-semantically-balanced) corpora.",
keywords = "reference production, evaluation experiments, Letter to the Editor",
author = "{van Deemter}, Kees and Albert Gatt and {van der Sluis}, Ielka and Richard Power",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01259.x",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "842--845",
journal = "Cognitive Science",
issn = "0364-0213",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the Incremental Algorithm

T2 - a Response to Krahmer et al

AU - van Deemter, Kees

AU - Gatt, Albert

AU - van der Sluis, Ielka

AU - Power, Richard

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.'s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. WE observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from "normal" (i.e., non-semantically-balanced) corpora.

AB - This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.'s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. WE observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from "normal" (i.e., non-semantically-balanced) corpora.

KW - reference production

KW - evaluation experiments

KW - Letter to the Editor

U2 - 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01259.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01259.x

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 842

EP - 845

JO - Cognitive Science

JF - Cognitive Science

SN - 0364-0213

IS - 5

ER -