Send Moses-support mailing list submissions to
moses-support@mit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
moses-support-request@mit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
moses-support-owner@mit.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Moses-support digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Major bug found in Moses (Read, James C)
2. Re: Major bug found in Moses (Read, James C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:50:33 +0000
From: "Read, James C" <jcread@essex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
To: Ondrej Bojar <bojar@ufal.mff.cuni.cz>, Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
<junczys@amu.edu.pl>
Cc: "Moses-support@mit.edu" <moses-support@mit.edu>, "Arnold, Doug"
<doug@essex.ac.uk>
Message-ID:
<DB3PR06MB0713396191C2F954BC81727485A60@DB3PR06MB0713.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Below I include a typical moses.ini file. Of course they were kept the same for both runs. The only difference was the phrase table filtering. I did everything in my power to make this the only variable.
James
________________________________________
From: Ondrej Bojar <bojar@ufal.mff.cuni.cz>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:23 PM
To: Read, James C; Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
Cc: Moses-support@mit.edu; Arnold, Doug
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
Hi,
BLEU scores don't mean much, unless you know what the translations look like. Marcin's explanation sounds very plausible.
How did you set weights in your experiment? And were they fixed for the two contrastive runs?
Cheers, O.
On June 17, 2015 4:01:26 PM CEST, "Read, James C" <jcread@essex.ac.uk> wrote:
>Read here for a table of results for 40 language pairs:
>
>
>http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~jcread/paper.pdf
>
>
>Would you honestly expect such huge differences in BLEU score?
>Honestly!?
>
>
>James
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Read, James C
>Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:56 PM
>To: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
>Cc: Moses-support@mit.edu; Arnold, Doug
>Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
>
>
>You would expect an improvement of 37 BLEU points?
>
>
>James
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt <junczys@amu.edu.pl>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:32 PM
>To: Read, James C
>Cc: Moses-support@mit.edu; Arnold, Doug
>Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
>
>
>Hi James,
>
>there are many more factors involved than just probability, for
>instance word penalties, phrase penalities etc. To be able to validate
>your own claim you would need to set weights for all those
>non-probabilities to zero. Otherwise there is no hope that moses will
>produce anything similar to the most probable translation. And based on
>that there is no surprise that there may be different translations. A
>pruned phrase table will produce naturally less noise, so I would say
>the behaviour you describe is quite exactly what I would expect to
>happen.
>
>Best,
>
>Marcin
>
>W dniu 2015-06-17 15:26, Read, James C napisal(a):
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>
>I tried unsuccessfully to publish experiments showing this bug in Moses
>behaviour. As a result I have lost interest in attempting to have my
>work published. Nonetheless I think you all should be aware of an
>anomaly in Moses' behaviour which I have thoroughly exposed and should
>be easy enough for you to reproduce.
>
>
>
>As I understand it the TM logic of Moses should select the most likely
>translations according to the TM. I would therefore expect a run of
>Moses with no LM to find sentences which are the most likely or at
>least close to the most likely according to the TM.
>
>
>
>To test this behaviour I performed two runs of Moses. One with an
>unfiltered phrase table the other with a filtered phrase table which
>left only the most likely phrase pair for each source language phrase.
>The results were truly startling. I observed huge differences in BLEU
>score. The filtered phrase tables produced much higher BLEU scores. The
>beam size used was the default width of 100. I would not have been
>surprised in the differences in BLEU scores where minimal but they were
>quite high.
>
>
>
>I have been unable to find a logical explanation for this behaviour
>other than to conclude that there must be some kind of bug in Moses
>which causes a TM only run of Moses to perform poorly in finding the
>most likely translations according to the TM when there are less likely
>phrase pairs included in the race.
>
>
>
>I hope this information will be useful to the Moses community and that
>the cause of the behaviour can be found and rectified.
>
>
>
>James
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Moses-support mailing list
>Moses-support@mit.edu<mailto: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
--
Ondrej Bojar (mailto:obo@cuni.cz / bojar@ufal.mff.cuni.cz)
http://www.cuni.cz/~obo
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:54:18 +0000
From: "Read, James C" <jcread@essex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
To: Matt Post <post@cs.jhu.edu>
Cc: "moses-support@mit.edu" <moses-support@mit.edu>, "Arnold, Doug"
<doug@essex.ac.uk>
Message-ID:
<DB3PR06MB071314FF5BD13F4DAECFFFE685A60@DB3PR06MB0713.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Evidently, if you filter the phrase table then the LM is not as important as you might feel. The question remains why isn't the system capable of finding the most likely translations without the LM? Why do I need to filter to help the system find them? This is undesirable behaviour. Clearly a bug.
I include the code I used for filtering. As you can see the 4th score only was used as a filtering criteria.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
#
# Program filters phrase table to leave only phrase pairs
# with probability above a threshold
#
use strict;
use warnings;
use Getopt::Long;
my $phrase;
my $min;
my $phrase_table;
my $filtered_table;
GetOptions( 'min=f' => \$min,
'out=s' => \$filtered_table,
'in=s' => \$phrase_table);
die "ERROR: must give threshold and phrase table input file and output file\n" unless ($min && $phrase_table && $filtered_table);
die "ERROR: file $phrase_table does not exist\n" unless (-e $phrase_table);
open (PHRASETABLE, "<$phrase_table") or die "FATAL: Could not open phrase table $phrase_table\n";;
open (FILTEREDTABLE, ">$filtered_table") or die "FATAL: Could not open phrase table $filtered_table\n";;
while (my $line = <PHRASETABLE>)
{
chomp $line;
my @columns = split ('\|\|\|', $line);
# check that file is a well formatted phrase table
if (scalar @columns < 4)
{
die "ERROR: input file is not a well formatted phrase table. A phrase table must have at least four colums each column separated by |||\n";
}
# get the probability and check it is less than the threshold
my @scores = split /\s+/, $columns[2];
if ($scores[3] > $min)
{
print FILTEREDTABLE $line."\n";;
}
}
________________________________
From: Matt Post <post@cs.jhu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:25 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt; moses-support@mit.edu; Arnold, Doug
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
I think you are misunderstanding how decoding works. The highest-weighted translation of each source phrase is not necessarily the one with the best BLEU score. This is why the decoder retains many options, so that it can search among them (together with their reorderings). The LM is an important component in making these selections.
Also, how did you weight the many probabilities attached to each phrase (to determine which was the most probable)? The tuning phase of decoding selects weights designed to optimize BLEU score. If you weighted them evenly, that is going to exacerbate this experiment.
matt
On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Read, James C <jcread@essex.ac.uk<mailto:jcread@essex.ac.uk>> wrote:
All I did was break the link to the language model and then perform filtering. How is that a methodoligical mistake? How else would one test the efficacy of the TM in isolation?
I remain convinced that this is undersirable behaviour and therefore a bug.
James
________________________________
From: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt <junczys@amu.edu.pl<mailto:junczys@amu.edu.pl>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:12 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: Arnold, Doug; moses-support@mit.edu<mailto:moses-support@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
Hi James
No, not at all. I would say that is expected behaviour. It's how search spaces and optimization works. If anything these are methodological mistakes on your side, sorry. You are doing weird thinds to the decoder and then you are surprised to get weird results from it.
W dniu 2015-06-17 16:07, Read, James C napisa?(a):
So, do we agree that this is undersirable behaviour and therefore a bug?
James
________________________________
From: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt <junczys@amu.edu.pl<mailto:junczys@amu.edu.pl>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:01 PM
To: Read, James C
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
As I said. With an unpruned phrase table and an decoder that just optmizes some unreasonble set of weights all bets are off, so if you get very low BLEU point there, it's not surprising. It's probably jumping around in a very weird search space. With a pruned phrase table you restrict the search space VERY strongly. Nearly everything that will be produced is a half-decent translation. So yes, I can imagine that would happen.
Marcin
W dniu 2015-06-17 15:56, Read, James C napisa?(a):
You would expect an improvement of 37 BLEU points?
James
________________________________
From: Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt <junczys@amu.edu.pl<mailto:junczys@amu.edu.pl>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:32 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: Moses-support@mit.edu<mailto:Moses-support@mit.edu>; Arnold, Doug
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Major bug found in Moses
Hi James,
there are many more factors involved than just probability, for instance word penalties, phrase penalities etc. To be able to validate your own claim you would need to set weights for all those non-probabilities to zero. Otherwise there is no hope that moses will produce anything similar to the most probable translation. And based on that there is no surprise that there may be different translations. A pruned phrase table will produce naturally less noise, so I would say the behaviour you describe is quite exactly what I would expect to happen.
Best,
Marcin
W dniu 2015-06-17 15:26, Read, James C napisa?(a):
Hi all,
I tried unsuccessfully to publish experiments showing this bug in Moses behaviour. As a result I have lost interest in attempting to have my work published. Nonetheless I think you all should be aware of an anomaly in Moses' behaviour which I have thoroughly exposed and should be easy enough for you to reproduce.
As I understand it the TM logic of Moses should select the most likely translations according to the TM. I would therefore expect a run of Moses with no LM to find sentences which are the most likely or at least close to the most likely according to the TM.
To test this behaviour I performed two runs of Moses. One with an unfiltered phrase table the other with a filtered phrase table which left only the most likely phrase pair for each source language phrase. The results were truly startling. I observed huge differences in BLEU score. The filtered phrase tables produced much higher BLEU scores. The beam size used was the default width of 100. I would not have been surprised in the differences in BLEU scores where minimal but they were quite high.
I have been unable to find a logical explanation for this behaviour other than to conclude that there must be some kind of bug in Moses which causes a TM only run of Moses to perform poorly in finding the most likely translations according to the TM when there are less likely phrase pairs included in the race.
I hope this information will be useful to the Moses community and that the cause of the behaviour can be found and rectified.
James
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu<mailto:Moses-support@mit.edu>
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu<mailto:Moses-support@mit.edu>
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/private/moses-support/attachments/20150617/c009d8b4/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
End of Moses-support Digest, Vol 104, Issue 31
**********************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to "Moses-support Digest, Vol 104, Issue 31"
Post a Comment