On 08.02.2017 13:21, Francis Tyers wrote: > El 2017-02-08 00:34, Nikita Medyankin escribió: >> Now it wasn't. I'm not sure whether it was because of the lack of time >> at the end of the summer or because the gain from using weighted >> transfer seemed to be negligible. My personal opinion is that the >> weakest spot (both performance- and quality-wise) is the python module >> which calculates the coverages and is used in the weight training >> tool. Regarding this, it seems like an idea to adapt the C++ code from >> the core to calculate the coverages during training instead of using >> that python module. >> > > I have a couple of comments to this: > > 1) One reason it could seem negligible is that there weren't so many > ambiguous > transfer rules in the tests. That the performance did not decrease > is already > a result! :) Yeah, there were like 3 groups of ambiguous rules with 2 rule variants in each, out of some 200 or 300 rules total.)
> 2) Would it be possible to merge the changes to the C++ code ? Would > it cause any > problems in pairs that don't use the functionality ? I would need to refresh my memories about it but I believe the stuff about the transfer weights was specifically desiged to skip all transfer-weight-related code if there's no weights file passed when the transfer module is called. > Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
