[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1532?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12669603#action_12669603
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1532:
-------------------------------------

Just to clear up the normalization (since I havn't done a good job of 
explaining it) -

If you use a weight that combines freq and edit distance (so that small edit 
distance wins don't completely decide the suggestion), using the real term 
frequencies will create math that explodes higher freq terms  unfairly. 
Normalizing down makes things a little better - in an index with term freqs 
that go from 1 to 400,000 - you don't want a term with freq:150,000 to be 
heavily preferred over something with freq:125,000. They should really be 
treated about the same, with edit distance the main factor.

- Mark

> File based spellcheck with doc frequencies supplied
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1532
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1532
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: contrib/spellchecker
>            Reporter: David Bowen
>            Priority: Minor
>
> The file-based spellchecker treats all words in the dictionary as equally 
> valid, so it can suggest a very obscure word rather than a more common word 
> which is equally close to the misspelled word that was entered.  It would be 
> very useful to have the option of supplying an integer with each word which 
> indicates its commonness.  I.e. the integer could be the document frequency 
> in some index or set of indexes.
> I've implemented a modification to the spellcheck API to support this by 
> defining a DocFrequencyInfo interface for obtaining the doc frequency of a 
> word, and a class which implements the interface by looking up the frequency 
> in an index.  So Lucene users can provide alternative implementations of 
> DocFrequencyInfo.  I could submit this as a patch if there is interest.  
> Alternatively, it might be better to just extend the spellcheck API to have a 
> way to supply the frequencies when you create a PlainTextDictionary, but that 
> would mean storing the frequencies somewhere when building the spellcheck 
> index, and I'm not sure how best to do that.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to