Skip to content

Some fixes in LM part regarding ngram history length + MLE ngram #13

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Some fixes in LM part regarding ngram history length + MLE ngram #13

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3870bb2
Some fixes in LM part regarding ngram history length + MLE ngram
uralik Dec 30, 2017
0b5ad71
wipe comments, + such as
uralik Dec 30, 2017
4664255
such an
uralik Dec 30, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
such an
  • Loading branch information
@uralik
uralik committed Dec 30, 2017
commit 466425507e4e035658493edb13b89c329f8a9bfa
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lecture_note.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3685,7 +3685,7 @@ \subsection{Smoothing and Back-Off}
travel.}

The biggest issue of having an $n$-gram that never occurs in the training corpus
is that any sentence containing such as $n$-gram will be given a zero probability
is that any sentence containing such an $n$-gram will be given a zero probability
regardless of how likely all the other $n$-grams are. Let us continue with the
example of ``I like llama''. With an $n$-gram language model built using all the
books in Google Books, the following, totally valid sentence\footnote{
Expand Down