Talk:Additive smoothing

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

"Add-one" vs. "additive"

The entry claims that Jurafsky and Martin use the term "additive smoothing", but they actually use the term "add-one smoothing" (as do Russell/Norvig). It would be worth seeing which term Manning/Schütze actually use, but I would have to get the book out of the library to find out. -AlanUS (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Pseudocount

Same concept. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same, but rather the pseudocount is used as a tool in additive smoothing, so doesn't have independent notability. So, agree that it's worth merging. Klbrain (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

We should merge Bayesian_average with this page. The methods are the same, and only the interpretations differ. Bscan (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on the grounds that the application is sufficiently different to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages

The issues with this method, as outlined in Ken Church's paper "What's wrong with adding one" should be discussed here: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.134.2237 - Francis Tyers · 04:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly agree. Is there any reason you don't start a small section about this yourself? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly technical

This article is all jargon and insider baseball, without one explicit statement of the obvious and important point that 0/5 is different strength of evidence than 0/500, which add one smoothing is supposed to help address. 2601:647:CD02:88A0:5560:1900:364C:CFB2 (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]