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