Re: [Kaldi-users] Dynamic LM classes

[Daniel P. <dp...@gm...>]

Yes, I think there might be various reasons why that
dynamic-composition approach would not work in Kaldi, but I don't have
time right at this second to figure it out.
It might be easier to handle things that were dynamic like that if you
got rid of context dependency by (say) assuming the dynamic part could
only come before/after silence.  Certainly it would require a lot of
coding.
Dan


On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Kirill Katsnelson
<kir...@sm...> wrote:
> Not sure if this is exactly a kaldi question, but how dynamic classes could be handled in wfst HCLG composite transducer? There are more tricky cases when the lexicon also needs extension. I want an optimized approach, much faster than the whole HCLG composition from the ground up.
>
> The Holy Book paper suggests the lazy composition, but I am not sure how to fit the determinization and adding self-loops into the picture (they did not explicitly use self-loops in the $H$ and instead assumed them in the decoder, but kaldi does, if I understand it correctly).
>
>  -kkm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Kaldi-users mailing list
> Kal...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kaldi-users