Hi:
The website documentation notes that lattice input may not work with
multi-threaded decoding. Is there a reason to believe this is not
likely to work? To the extent that each thread processes a single
input example (lattice instead of sentence), it seems like the
shared-resource issues would b
I will do that. Thanks, Hieu!
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Hieu Hoang wrote:
> it should be threadsafe these days. if you find out otherwise, i'll do my
> best to fix it
>
> Don't use IRSTLM or the old binary phrase-table.
>
>
> On 23/07/2015 00:26, Jam
Hi:
I also noticed that decoding with lattice input is not known to be
thread safe ( http://www.statmt.org/moses/?n=Moses.Optimize ). Does
this concern also extend to confusion network input?
Thanks again,
James
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM, James H. Cross III
wrote:
> Definitely at le
>
> On 22/07/2015 22:20, James H. Cross III wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hieu:
>>
>> Thanks for the response! I would like to look into adding this
>> functionality myself.
>>
>> After a first pass, it looks like a good starting point would be
>> addin
ml markups
>
>
> On 18/07/2015 00:35, James H. Cross III wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it still the case that XML markup is not supported for confusion
>> network (or lattice) input? If not, are the reasons for not supporting
>> this feature because implemen
Hi:
Is it still the case that XML markup is not supported for confusion
network (or lattice) input? If not, are the reasons for not supporting
this feature because implementing it imposes particular difficulties
or simply due to lack of interest?
Thanks,
James
