Moses-support Digest, Vol 110, Issue 41

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: Doubts on Multiple Decoding Paths (Philipp Koehn)
2. Re: Doubts on Multiple Decoding Paths (Rajen Chatterjee)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:47:03 -0500
From: Philipp Koehn <phi@jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Doubts on Multiple Decoding Paths
To: Rajen Chatterjee <rajen.k.chatterjee@gmail.com>
Cc: moses-support <moses-support@mit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAAFADDBdzNHGOPxiLdP6Jj-hWnEoERkgPqVW-e-8Wm+yxkZ46Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi,

the sentence

"Translation options are collected from one table, and additional
options are collected from the other tables."

could be rewritten as

"Translation options are generated from each table independently."

but I am not sure, if this is really clearer.

-phi

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Rajen Chatterjee <
rajen.k.chatterjee@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Anoop, for the question. I too have the same doubt as yours.
>
> So to repeate, your question was:
> "With *either* option, all the constituent phrases of a target
> hypothesis come from a single table, but different hypothesis can use
> different tables. Each hypothesis is scored using one table only. I did not
> understand the* " additional options are collected from the other tables"
> *bit in the documentation. "
>
> So, if each hypothesis is scored using a single table then why it is said
> that "additional options are collected from other tables". It sounds
> somewhat contradicting or maybe I am missing something.
>
> Please let us know if anybody knows what it mean.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Anoop (?????) <
> anoop.kunchukuttan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your inputs. I plan to compare these methods, and will share
>> the results on the group.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Anoop
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Michael Denkowski <
>> michael.j.denkowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Anoop,
>>>
>>> Confirming that your reading of "union" is in fact how it works. If you
>>> want each phrase to be scored by all tables without having to worry about
>>> making sure every phrase is in every table, I you can use
>>> PhraseDictionaryGroup with default-average-others=true. This multiplies
>>> the size of the phrase feature set by the number of models, so I recommend
>>> running mer-moses.pl with --batch-mira.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Philipp Koehn <phi@jhu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> that sounds right.
>>>>
>>>> The "union" option is fairly new, developed by Michael Denkowski.
>>>> I am not aware of any empirical study of the different methods,
>>>> so I'd be curious to see what you find.
>>>>
>>>> -phi
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Anoop (?????) <
>>>> anoop.kunchukuttan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to understand the multiple decoding paths feature in
>>>>> Moses.
>>>>>
>>>>> The documentation (
>>>>> http://www.statmt.org/moses/?n=Advanced.Models#ntoc7) describes 3
>>>>> methods: both, either and union
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is my understanding of the options. Please let me know
>>>>> if it is correct:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - With *both* option, the constituent phrases of the target
>>>>> hypothesis come from both tables (since they are shared) and are scored
>>>>> with both the tables.
>>>>> - With *either* option, all the constituent phrases of a target
>>>>> hypothesis come from a single table, but different hypothesis can use
>>>>> different tables. Each hypothesis is scored using one table only. I did not
>>>>> understand the " additional options are collected from the other tables"
>>>>> bit in the documentation.
>>>>> - With *union* option, the constituent phrases of a target
>>>>> hypothesis come from different tables and are scored using scores from all
>>>>> the tables. Use 0 if the option doesn't appear in some table, unless the
>>>>> *default-average-others=true* option is used.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Anoop.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow
>>>>> mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors
>>>>> and to retrace my steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://flightsofthought.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow
>> mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors
>> and to retrace my steps.
>>
>> http://flightsofthought.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moses-support mailing list
>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Regards,
> Rajen Chatterjee.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moses-support mailing list
> 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/20151223/be9a3338/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:37:26 +0100
From: Rajen Chatterjee <rajen.k.chatterjee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Doubts on Multiple Decoding Paths
To: Philipp Koehn <phi@jhu.edu>
Cc: moses-support <moses-support@mit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAC4-+Nx9oBZVHP=qo2VfsmrPLwSps_Y-K+F_+9rdpDYnt1THPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks Phillipp for the clarification.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Philipp Koehn <phi@jhu.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the sentence
>
> "Translation options are collected from one table, and additional
> options are collected from the other tables."
>
> could be rewritten as
>
> "Translation options are generated from each table independently."
>
> but I am not sure, if this is really clearer.
>
> -phi
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Rajen Chatterjee <
> rajen.k.chatterjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Anoop, for the question. I too have the same doubt as yours.
>>
>> So to repeate, your question was:
>> "With *either* option, all the constituent phrases of a target
>> hypothesis come from a single table, but different hypothesis can use
>> different tables. Each hypothesis is scored using one table only. I did not
>> understand the* " additional options are collected from the other
>> tables" *bit in the documentation. "
>>
>> So, if each hypothesis is scored using a single table then why it is said
>> that "additional options are collected from other tables". It sounds
>> somewhat contradicting or maybe I am missing something.
>>
>> Please let us know if anybody knows what it mean.
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Anoop (?????) <
>> anoop.kunchukuttan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for your inputs. I plan to compare these methods, and will share
>>> the results on the group.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Anoop
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Michael Denkowski <
>>> michael.j.denkowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Anoop,
>>>>
>>>> Confirming that your reading of "union" is in fact how it works. If
>>>> you want each phrase to be scored by all tables without having to worry
>>>> about making sure every phrase is in every table, I you can use
>>>> PhraseDictionaryGroup with default-average-others=true. This multiplies
>>>> the size of the phrase feature set by the number of models, so I recommend
>>>> running mer-moses.pl with --batch-mira.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Philipp Koehn <phi@jhu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> that sounds right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "union" option is fairly new, developed by Michael Denkowski.
>>>>> I am not aware of any empirical study of the different methods,
>>>>> so I'd be curious to see what you find.
>>>>>
>>>>> -phi
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Anoop (?????) <
>>>>> anoop.kunchukuttan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to understand the multiple decoding paths feature in
>>>>>> Moses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The documentation (
>>>>>> http://www.statmt.org/moses/?n=Advanced.Models#ntoc7) describes 3
>>>>>> methods: both, either and union
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is my understanding of the options. Please let me know
>>>>>> if it is correct:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - With *both* option, the constituent phrases of the target
>>>>>> hypothesis come from both tables (since they are shared) and are scored
>>>>>> with both the tables.
>>>>>> - With *either* option, all the constituent phrases of a target
>>>>>> hypothesis come from a single table, but different hypothesis can use
>>>>>> different tables. Each hypothesis is scored using one table only. I did not
>>>>>> understand the " additional options are collected from the other tables"
>>>>>> bit in the documentation.
>>>>>> - With *union* option, the constituent phrases of a target
>>>>>> hypothesis come from different tables and are scored using scores from all
>>>>>> the tables. Use 0 if the option doesn't appear in some table, unless the
>>>>>> *default-average-others=true* option is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Anoop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow
>>>>>> mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors
>>>>>> and to retrace my steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://flightsofthought.blogspot.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> I claim to be a simple individual liable to err like any other fellow
>>> mortal. I own, however, that I have humility enough to confess my errors
>>> and to retrace my steps.
>>>
>>> http://flightsofthought.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moses-support mailing list
>>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Regards,
>> Rajen Chatterjee.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moses-support mailing list
>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>
>>
>


--
-Regards,
Rajen Chatterjee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/private/moses-support/attachments/20151224/32e2ef08/attachment.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support


End of Moses-support Digest, Vol 110, Issue 41
**********************************************

Tweet