My underlying question was : how did you build your vocab in your experiments ?
For example, I transform the date, url to $date$ and $url$ (unique vocab)
Of course, but how is built your vocab when you don’t replace them.
I replace them by ‘$date$’ and ‘$url$’, then they are vocabs
So, my question is, how did you build your vocab in the case where you DON’T replace them by a code ? Did you put the numbers inside the vocab ? If yes, you certainly got less real words in it.
when without, the number or date aren’t in vocab, they are replaced by UNK
If the numbers are not in the vocab when not replaced, I think it’s quite equivalent with the case where you are replacing them by a code.
that’s similar to my result of experiment, so I just wonder that it’s not really important to do normalization for date and number before building vocab for NMT
maybe someone has better way for normalization
You may try with richer normalisation. For example, rather than replacing 123.45 by a poor single $num$, or UNK, replace it by 888.88, that will keep an informative precision about the way it’s formatted.
to add up (a bit late) on this thread: yes, entity normalisation is important and even if you cannot except jump in your score, it will make a big difference for your users. For dealing with that, we have introduced monolingual preprocessing hooks and protected sequence to seamless deal with them.
In short - the process is the following:
- define a mpreprocessing hook that will locate your favorite entities and annotate them with protected sequence markers - typically for uri:
transform that into:
check out ｟URL：http://myurl.com/1234｠!
Note that there are 2 fields in the protected sequence separated by this strange
： character (it is not
- the entity name
- the actual value
This notation turns automatically the entity as a unique ｟URL｠ vocab, while the second field (the actual value), is used in the detokenization within inference to substitute the actual value.
Of course, you can also perform preprocessing outside of the OpenNMT code (i.e. without a hook), but defining it as a hook guarantees you that inference and training and identical, and you don’t need to add additional preprocessing layer in the inference code.
Does the encoding with ｟ - ｠ have the same behavior in OpenNMT-py?
Hello @tyahmed, OpenNMT-py is agnostic regarding the tokenization, so you can use the same protection mechanism.
However, afaik there the lexical constraint mechanism is not implemented so you will not benefit from placeholder unicity generating, nor the actual pairing of source and target entities.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. So the only way, with pytorch, is to encode the named entities with placeholders, train the model then post-process the data after the translation? (Post-processing using attention weights to find the corresponding source token for each placeholder in the target)
Does the encoding with ((-)) also work in OpenNMT-tf?
I have tried to protect some entities like named entities, urls with the method mentioned in this post ｟URL：http://myurl.com/1234｠. It seems the notation is working for the tokenization and BPE processes. However, the model tries to translate ((URL)) to a number. For instance,
check out ｟URL：http://myurl.com/1234｠! --> check out 1956 !
What I’d like is the model to return ((URL)) in order to perform some kind of post-processing and recover the original url
Hello - this has been learned during training - so just make sure your training corpus is balanced after annotation and it should work fine!
Thanks for your answer @jean.senellart, however, I think I don’t really understand what you mean exactly. What do you mean by balanced corpus after annotation? Moreover, is the number I get correct, should I expect this behavior?
Hello, with placeholders - what the training is seeing are sentences like:
source blabla ｟URL｠source blabla => target blabla
- note that the actual source sequence is hidden (the actual urls)
- now if you have unbalanced sentences - where there are ｟URL｠in the source and not in the target (or not the same count), the NMT model will have to learn to translate a placeholder to something. for your training it happened to be a number coming from such unbalanced sentences in your training
So in other words:
- preprocess your corpus to annotate with placeholders
- filter-out all sentence pairs where you don’t have source/target mapping of placeholders
Thanks! That’s awesome! That’s definitely the reason for my problem
Hi jean @jean.senellart I am unable to use this hook aproach. Could you please elaborate it ?
My problem is with sentences like below:
SRC : This Section was not in the Act as originally enacted, but came into force by virtue of an Amendment Act of 2009 with effect from 27.10.2009.
But the translation of above sentence contains date(27.10.2009) first then the number 2009.
If I have multiple dates for instance, how will my placeholder know which date is to be replaced?
Kindly correct me wherever I am wrong