Hi,
Could someone kindly help me out with respect to the following?
(Why should there be a difference in translations produced when I am
basically providing the same input except I am giving a different inputtype
- namely lattice format?)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Amit Abbi <ada2...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a query with regard to use of lattice input in moses.
> There is a little difference in the translations generated when I run moses
> using the 'normal' input format and when I run it with 'lattice input'
> format.
> The translations weren't radically different - only a few phrases were
> different.
>
> When running moses without lattice input, each line in my input file looks
> like the following:-
> a b c d e f g h
>
> When running it using word lattices each line in my input file looks like
> the following:-
>
> ((('*EPS*',1.0,1),),(('a',1.0,1),),(('b',1.0,1),),(('c',1.0,1),),(('d',1.0,1),),(('e',1.0,1),),(('f',1.0,1),),(('g',1.0,1),),(('h',1.0,1),),(('*EPS*',1.0,1),),)
>
> Should there be any differences in the translations produced in the two
> cases?
> When calling moses I give the parameters -inputtype 2 -weight-i 0.2.
>
> Also I wished to know, how is the 'weight-i' used here?
> My understanding is that (weight-i)*log(path weights) + lambda1*lm + ....
> determines the final log probability of a hypothesis. (where by path weights
> I mean the product of the arc weights we specify in the lattice input format
> for the path in question). Is it correct? and in that case should one also
> perform some sort of tuning for this weight?
>
> Regards,
> Amit
>
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Amit
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
