Noisy channel model

The noisy channel model is a framework used in spell checkers, question answering, speech recognition, and machine translation. In this model, the goal is to find the intended word given a word where the letters have been scrambled in some manner.

Definition

Given an alphabet , let be the set of all finite strings over . Let the dictionary of valid words be some subset of , i.e., .

The noisy channel is the matrix

,

where is the intended word and is the scrambled word that was actually received.

Example

Consider the English alphabet . Some subset makes up the dictionary of valid English words.

There are several mistakes that may occur while typing, including:

  1. Missing letters, e.g., leter instead of letter
  2. Accidental letter additions, e.g., misstake instead of mistake
  3. Swapping letters, e.g., recieved instead of received
  4. Replacing letters, e.g., fimite instead of finite

To construct the noisy channel matrix , we must consider the probability of each mistake, given the intended word ( for all and ). These probabilities may be gathered, for example, by considering the Levenshtein distance between and or by comparing the draft of an essay with one that has been manually edited for spelling.

Error-correction

The goal of the noisy channel model is to find the intended word given the scrambled word that was received. The decision function is a function that, given a scrambled word, returns the intended word.

Methods of constructing a decision function include the maximum likelihood rule, the maximum a posteriori rule, and the minimum distance rule.

In some cases, it may be better to accept the scrambled word as the intended word rather than attempt to find an intended word in the dictionary. For example, the word schönfinkeling may not be in the dictionary, but might in fact be the intended word.

gollark: I think that if governments had actually been competent with initial containment, it wouldn't have been necessary to do lockdowns; given that they were useless, they were probably the least bad solution.
gollark: I was mostly complaining about their specific reasoning there (it is not very sensible, inasmuch as basically no possible bad event is *guaranteed* but ignoring the possibility of them is quite bad for you), but I don't agree with the rest of what they said either, so thing.
gollark: Bold of you to assume I know things.
gollark: > it's okay to not be scared of what MIGHT happenThis is such a moronically stupid attitude toward risk. Among other things.
gollark: ("you" in general)

See also

References

  • Brill, Eric; Moore, Robert C. (Jan 2000). "An Improved Error Model for Noisy Channel Spelling Correction". Proceedings of ACL 2000: 286–293. doi:10.3115/1075218.1075255.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.