Thanks for that. Should save me quite some time.
Regarding the TM being much smaller than the LM I wouldn't place bets on that being the situation for much longer (smiles knowingly). James ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Philipp Koehn <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 5:04 PM To: Read, James C Cc: Moses Support Subject: Re: [Moses-support] tuning question Hi, since the phrase table can be quite huge, it has been standard practice to filter and binarize the filtered phrase table for tuning and testing. It is not clear, if this is actually still the best practice, since in the last years RAM in machines has increased and translation model size compared to language model size is much smaller. -phi On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Read, James C <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The tutorial here http://www.statmt.org/moses/?n=moses.baseline seems to suggest that the tuning phase should be done without first binarising the phrase table and relinking the moses.ini file the binarised version. Am I reading this wrong or is this just an oversight. I am about to tune a number of systems so if binarising the phrase table before hand is likely to speed up the tuning process it would be useful to know before I set this thing running. Of course, I wouldn't usually complain about having an excuse not to do any work for a few days but, well, you know... James _______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
_______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
