Hi Joerg, "grow" would be the closest to Franz's refined methods, as far as I understand it. The methods vary in the number of alignment points added - so AER may not be the most interesting number, rather look at precision/recall.
-phi On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM, J.Tiedemann <j.tiedem...@rug.nl> wrote: > > hi, > > I'm just wondering if Och's "refined" heuristics is also implemented > in Moses. The "grow-diag" is not exactly the same as far as I > understand. > > The reason why I'm asking is because I found out that in all of my > experiments with europarl data the "intersection" always produces the > best results in terms of AER (for example using the wpt03 data) > whereas I see better performances reported for refined compared with > intersection in various papers (also for the wpt03 data). However, I > cannot believe that the grow-heuristics would perform so much worse > than the original "refined" approach. > > My AER scores with standard GIZA settings and moses heuristics for > wpt03 data are the following: > > moses.intersect AER = 0.0613 > moses.grow-diag AER = 0.0843 > moses.grow-diag-final-and AER = 0.0926 > moses.grow-diag-final AER = 0.1312 > moses.srctotgt AER = 0.1039 > moses.tgttosrc AER = 0.1162 > moses.union AER = 0.1444 > > does this sound reasonable? > > > Jorg > _______________________________________________ > Moses-support mailing list > Moses-support@mit.edu > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support > _______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list Moses-support@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
