Re: [Kaldi-users] Dynamic LM classes

[Sean T. <se...@se...>]

Many of the use cases are not going to have helpfully bracketing silence.
Take for instance, addresses from a directory listing.

-- Sean

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Povey <dp...@gm...> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Kaldi-users mailing list
> Kal...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kaldi-users
>