exactly, the only correct way to get real probabilities out would be to compute the normalising constant and renormalise the dot products for each phrase pair.
remember that this is best thought of as a set of scores, weighted such that the relative proportions of each model are balanced Miles On 20 September 2011 16:07, Burger, John D. <[email protected]> wrote: > Taylor Rose wrote: > >> I am looking at pruning phrase tables for the experiment I'm working on. >> I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to include the 'penalty' metric >> when calculating probability. It is my understanding that multiplying 4 >> or 5 of the metrics from the phrase table would result in a probability >> of the phrase being correct. Is this a good understanding or am I >> missing something? > > I don't think this is correct. At runtime all the features from the phrase > table and a number of other features, some only available during decoding, > are combined in an inner product with a weight vector to score partial > translations. I believe it's fair to say that at no point is there an > explicit modeling of "a probability of the phrase being correct", at least > not in isolation from the partially translated sentence. This is not to say > you couldn't model this yourself, of course. > > - John Burger > MITRE > _______________________________________________ > Moses-support mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
