Hi Ed,
Eduard Hovy schrieb:
SMT is re-treading the path of older approaches, but now doing things
automatically that used to be done by hand:
- the initial IBM work recreated word-replacement MT, but learned the
replacement rules automatically
- Och's and other current SMT is redoing EBMT, but
Hi all,
A few comments on this ongoing discussion:
I suspect that the bias that Andy's experience reflects (as expressed in
his posed questions) was unintended, but is a natural consequence of
the current high-visibility of SMT in the research arena. Particularly in
broader (non-MT-specific)
Given the above trend, I think an effective response is to explicitly
say in an EBMT paper yes I am doing EBMT but creating the example
phrases and their translation by hand; some SMT is creating the
[...]
the bigger point, though, is: why should one not make comparisons to
SMT-style
Hello Andy,
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:28:12 +0100
From: Andy Way [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Can anyone envisage a situation where an SMT paper was asked to
compare its results against an MT model?
More than most other approaches, SMT people tend to ignore previous
work in the mistaken belief
