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
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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

The contents of Pseudocount was merged into Additive smoothing on 5 April 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

"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]