Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Creation of the Example Database
Statistical Machine Translation
Data Resources
Related Hybrid MT Approaches
Experimental Setup
English-French Results
Merging All Data
French-English Results
Discussion
Data Resources: The Europarl Corpus
Merging All Data: Hybrid Ebmt vs. Hybrid PBSMT
Data Resources and Experimental Setup
Data Resources & Chunk Alignment
Translation Results
Pruning the Search & Scoring Hypotheses
Summary
Future Work
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Natural Language Processing

Hybrid data-driven models of machine translation

Profile image of Declan GrovesDeclan Groves

2005, Machine Translation

Abstract

This paper presents an extended, harmonised account of our previous work on combining subsentential alignments from phrase-based statistical machine translation (SMT) and example-based MT (EBMT) systems to create novel hybrid data-driven systems capable of outperforming the baseline SMT and EBMT systems from which they were derived. In previous work, we demonstrated that while an EBMT system is capable of outperforming a phrase-based SMT (PBSMT) system constructed from freely available resources, a hybrid ‘example-based’ SMT system incorporating marker chunks and SMT subsentential alignments is capable of outperforming both baseline translation models for French–English translation. In this paper, we show that similar gains are to be had from constructing a hybrid ‘statistical’ EBMT system. Unlike the previous research, here we use the Europarl training and test sets, which are fast becoming the standard data in the field. On these data sets, while all hybrid ‘statistical’ EBMT variants still fall short of the quality achieved by the baseline PBSMT system, we show that adding the marker chunks to create a hybrid ‘example-based’ SMT system outperforms the two baseline systems from which it is derived. Furthermore, we provide further evidence in favour of hybrid systems by adding an SMT target-language model to the EBMT system, and demonstrate that this too has a positive effect on translation quality. We also show that many of the subsentential alignments derived from the Europarl corpus are created by either the PBSMT or the EBMT system, but not by both. In sum, therefore, despite the obvious convergence of the two paradigms, the crucial differences between SMT and EBMT contribute positively to the overall translation quality. The central thesis of this paper is that any researcher who continues to develop an MT system using either of these approaches will benefit further from integrating the advantages of the other model; dogged adherence to one approach will lead to inferior systems being developed.

Related papers

OpenMT: Open Source Machine Translation Using Hybrid Methods
N. Areta

The main goal of the OpenMT project is the development of open source machine translation architectures based on hybrid models and advanced syntactic-semantic processors. These architectures combine the three main Machine Translation (MT) frameworks, Rule-based (RBMT), Statistical (SMT) and Example-based (EBMT), into hybrid systems. Defined architectures and results will be open source, allow for a rapid development and adaptation of new advanced machine translation systems for other languages. The project deals with four different languages: English, Spanish, Catalan and Basque. The translation systems developed for all language pairs will be internally evaluated using a rich set of linguistic metrics, and in different international evaluation campaigns.

View PDFchevron_right
MMT: New Open Source MT for the Translation Industry
Nicola Bertoldi

2017

MMT is a new open source machine translation software specifically addressing the needs of the translation industry. In this paper we describe its overall architecture and provide details about its major components. We report performance results on a multi-domain benchmark based on public data, on two translation directions, by comparing MMT against state-of-theart commercial and research phrase-based and neural MT systems.

View PDFchevron_right
LIUM's SMT Machine Translation Systems for WMT 2012
Anthony Rousseau, Haithem Afli

This paper describes the development of French–English and English–French statistical machine translation systems for the 2012 WMT shared task evaluation. We developed phrase-based systems based on the Moses decoder, trained on the provided data only. Additionally, new features this year included improved language and translation model adaptation using the cross-entropy score for the corpus selection.

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating the Translation Accuracy of a Novel Language-Independent MT Methodology
Marina Vassiliou

The current paper evaluates the performance of the PRESEMT methodology, which facilitates the creation of machine translation (MT) systems for different language pairs. This methodology aims to develop a hybrid MT system that extracts translation information from large, predominantly monolingual corpora, using pattern recognition techniques. PRESEMT has been designed to have the lowest possible requirements on specialised resources and tools, given that for many languages (especially less widely used ones) only limited linguistic resources are available. In PRESEMT, the main translation process is divided into two phases, the first determining the overall structure of a target language (TL) sentence, and the second disambiguating between alternative translations for words or phrases and establishing local word order. This paper describes the latest version of the system and evaluates its translation accuracy, while also benchmarking the PRESEMT performance by comparing it with other established MT systems using objective measures.

View PDFchevron_right
M3TRA: integrating TM and MT for professional translators
Vincent Vandeghinste

2018

Translation memories (TM) and machine translation (MT) both are potentially useful resources for professional translators, but they are often still used independently in translation workflows. As translators tend to have a higher confidence in fuzzy matches than in MT, we investigate how to combine the benefits of TM retrieval with those of MT, by integrating the results of both. We develop a flexible TM-MT integration approach based on various techniques combining the use of TM and MT, such as fuzzy repair, span pretranslation and exploiting multiple matches. Results for ten language pairs using the DGT-TM dataset indicate almost consistently better BLEU, METEOR and TER scores compared to the MT, TM and NMT baselines.

View PDFchevron_right
Latest Developments in Machine Translation Technology: Beginning a New Era in MT Research
zaki mu

1993

Six years ago at the first MT Summit conference, the field of MT was dominated by approaches which had been established in the late 1970s. These were the systems which had built upon experience gained in what may be called the 'quiet' decade of machine translation, the ten years after the publication of the ALPAC report in 1966 had brought to an end MT research in the United States and had profoundly affected its support elsewhere.

View PDFchevron_right
Codified Close Translation as a Standard for MT
Lars Ahrenberg

Conference of the European Association for Machine …, 2005

This paper proposes that quality criteria are set up for machine translation systems that attempt to capture what can be considered the upper limit for the performance of MT systems. It argues that the best performance MT currently should aim for is close translation, and that attempts should be made to codify what that entails for any given language pair. Some guidelines for the selection of close translations are proposed and their application on concrete examples drawn from an English-Swedish parallel corpus is discussed. The definition of different quality levels in relation to a high-quality standard is also touched upon.

View PDFchevron_right
at Karlsruhe Translation System for the EACL-WMT 2009
Teresa Herrmann

2000

In this paper we describe the statistical machine translation system of the Univer- sit¨ at Karlsruhe developed for the transla- tion task of the Fourth Workshop on Sta- tistical Machine Translation. The state-of- the-art phrase-based SMT system is aug- mented with alternative word reordering and alignment mechanisms as well as op- tional phrase table modifications. We par- ticipate in the

View PDFchevron_right
Machine Translation Quality: A comparative evaluation of SMT, NMT and tailored-NMT outputs
MARIA STASIMIOTI

2020

The present study aims to compare three systems: a generic statistical machine translation (SMT), a generic neural machine translation (NMT) and a tailored-NMT system focusing on the English to Greek language pair. The comparison is carried out following a mixed-methods approach, i.e. automatic metrics, as well as side-by-side ranking, adequacy and fluency rating, measurement of actual post editing (PE) effort and human error analysis performed by 16 postgraduate Translation students. The findings reveal a higher score for both the generic NMT and the tailored-NMT outputs as regards automatic metrics and human evaluation metrics, with the tailored-NMT output faring even better than the generic NMT output.

View PDFchevron_right
The rwth aachen machine translation system for wmt 2010
Stephan Peitz

2010

In this paper we describe the statistical machine translation system of the RWTH Aachen University developed for the translation task of the Fifth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Stateof-the-art phrase-based and hierarchical statistical MT systems are augmented with appropriate morpho-syntactic enhancements, as well as alternative phrase training methods and extended lexicon models. For some tasks, a system combination of the best systems was used to generate a final hypothesis. We participated in the constrained condition of German-English and French-English in each translation direction.

View PDFchevron_right

References (128)

  1. Abaitua, J. (1998). Complex Predicates in Basque: from Lexical Forms to Func- tional Structures. Ph.d. thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
  2. Aduriz, I., Arriola, J. M., Artola, X., de Ilarraza, A. D., Gojenola, K., and Maritx- alar, M. (1997). Morphosyntactic Disambiguation for Basque Based on the Con- straint Grammar Formalism. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP-97), pages 282-288, Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria.
  3. Algeria, I., de Ilarraza, A. D., Labaka, G., Lersundi, M., Mayor, A., Sarasola, K., Forcada, M., Oritz, S., and Padró, L. (2005). An Open Architecture for Transfer- Based Machine Translation. In Machine Translation Summit X: Workshop on Open-Source Machine Translation, pages 7-14, Phuket, Thailand.
  4. Armstrong, S., Flanagan, M., Graham, Y., Groves, D., Mellebeek, B., Morris- sey, S., Stroppa, N., and Way, A. (2006). MaTrEx: Machine Translation Using Examples. In TC-Star OpenLab on Speech Translation, Trento, Italy. Slides at http://tc-star.org/openlab2006/day1/Groves openlab.pdf.
  5. Aue, A., Menezes, A., Moore, R., Quirk, C., and Ringger, E. (2004). Statistical Machine Translation Using Labeled Semantic Dependency Graphs. In Proceed- ings of the Tenth Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-04), pages 125-134, Baltimore, MD.
  6. Bangalore, S., Murdock, V., and Riccardi, G. (2002). Boostrapping Bilingual Data using Consensus Translation for a Multilingual Instant Messaging System. In Pro- ceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COL- ING 2002), pages 1-7, Taipei, Taiwan.
  7. Becker, J. D. (1975). The Phrasal Lexicon. In Proceedings of Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, pages 70-73, Cambridge, MA.
  8. Birch, A., Callison-Burch, C., and Osborne, M. (2006). Constraining the Phrase- Based, Joint Probability Statitistical Translation Model. In Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 10-18, Boston, MA.
  9. Bod, R. (1992). A Computational Model of Language Performance: Data Oriented Parsing. In Proceedings of the 15th[sic] International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'92), pages 855-859, Nantes, France.
  10. Brown, P., Cocke, J., Pietra, S. D., Pietra, V. D., Jelinek, F., Mercer, R., and Roosin, P. (1988). A Statistical Approach to Language Translation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-88), pages 71-76, Budapest, Hungary.
  11. Brown, P., Cocke, J., Pietra, S. D., Pietra, V. D., Jelinek, F., Mercer, R., and Roossin, P. (1990). A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation. Computational Linguistics, 16:79-85.
  12. Brown, P., Pietra, S. D., Pietra, V. D., and Mercer, R. (1991). Word-Sense Disam- biguation Using Statistical Methods. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Assosiation for Compuatational Lingusitics (ACL-91), pages 264-270, Berke- ley, CA.
  13. Brown, P., Pietra, S. D., Pietra, V. D., and Mercer, R. (1993). The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation. Computational Linguis- tics, 19(2):263-311.
  14. Brown, R. (1996). Example-Based Machine Translation in the Pangloss System. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-96), pages 169-174, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  15. Brown, R. (1999). Adding Linguistic Knowledge to a Lexical Example-based Trans- lation System. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Theoretical and Method- ological Issues in Machine Translation TMI-99, pages 22-32, Chester, England.
  16. Brown, R. (2000). Automated Generalization of Translation Examples. In Pro- ceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2000 in Europe), pages 125-131, Saarbrücken, Germany.
  17. Brown, R., Hutchinson, R., Bennett, P., Carbonell, J., and Janson, P. (2003). Reducing Boundary Friction Using Translation-Fragment Overlap. In Machine Translation Summit IX, pages 24-31, New Orleans, LA.
  18. Burbank, A., Carpuat, M., Clark, S., Dreyer, M., Fox, P., Groves, D., Hall, K., Hearne, M., Melamed, D., Shen, Y., Way, A., Wellington, B., and Wu, D. (2005). Statistical Machine Translation by Parsing: Fi- nal Report. Johns Hopkins Univeristy CLSP Summer Workshop 2005. http://www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws2005/groups/statistical/documents/finalreport.pdf.
  19. Callison-Burch, C., Osborne, M., and Koehn, P. (2006). Re-evaluating the Role of BLEU in Machine Translation Research. In Proceedings of the 11th European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-06), pages 249- 256, Trento, Italy.
  20. Carbonell, J., Klein, S., Miller, D., Steinbaum, M., Grassiany, T., and Frey, J. (2006). Context-Based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 7th Confer- ence of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 19-28, Cambridge, MA.
  21. Carl, M. and Hansen, S. (1999). Linking Translation Memories with Example- Based Machine Translation. In Machine Translation Summit VII, pages 617-624, Singapore.
  22. Charniak, E., Knight, K., and Yamada, K. (2003). Syntax-Based Language Models for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Machine Transla- tion Summit, pages 40-46, New Orleans, LO.
  23. Chen, K. and Chen, H.-H. (1995). Machine Translation: An Integrated Approach. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-95), pages 287-294, Leuven, Belgium.
  24. Chiang, D. (2005). A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 263-279, Ann Arbor, MI.
  25. Chomsky, N. (1969). Quine's Empirical Assumptions. In Davidson, D. and Hin- tikka, J., editors, Words and Objections. Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  26. Church, K. and Hanks, P. (1990). Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Leixcography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1):22-29.
  27. Collins, B. (1998). Example-Based Machine Translation: An Adaptation-Guided Retrieval Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
  28. Cranias, L., Papageorgiou, H., and Piperidis, S. (1994). A Matching Technique in Example-Based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 1994), pages 100-104, Kyoto, Japan.
  29. Dempster, A., Laird, N., and Rubin, D. (1977). Maximum Likelihood from Incom- plete Data via the EM Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1):1-38.
  30. Doddington, G. (2002). Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Quality Using N-gram Co-Occurrence Statistics. In Human Language Technology: Notebook Proceedings, pages 128-132, San Diego, CA.
  31. Frederking, R. and Nirenburg, S. (1994). Three Heads are Better than One. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 95-100, Stuttgart, Germany.
  32. Frederking, R., Nirenburg, S., Farwell, D., Helmreich, S., Hovy, E., Knight, K., Beale, S., Domashnev, C., Attardo, D., Grannes, D., and Brown, R. (1994). Inte- grating Translations from Multiple Sources within the Pangloss Mark III Machine Translation System. In Technology Partnerships for Crossing the Language Barrier: Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 73-80, Columbia, Maryland.
  33. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patters: Elements of Reusable Objected-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman Pub- lishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA.
  34. Gerloff, P. (1987). Identifying the Unit of Analysis in Translation. In Faerch, C. and Kasper, G., editors, Introspection in Second Language Research, pages 135- 158. Calvedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
  35. Germann, U., Jahr, M., Knight, K., Marcu, D., and Yamada, K. (2001). Fast Decoding and Optimal Decoding for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, pages 228-235, Toulouse, France.
  36. Goodman, J. (2001). A Bit of Progress in Language Modeling. Computer Speech and Language, 15(1):403-434.
  37. Gough, N. (2005). Example-Based Machine Translation Using the Marker Hypoth- esis. PhD Thesis, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
  38. Gough, N. and Way, A. (2004a). Example-Based Controlled Translation. In Pro- ceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Association for Machine Trans- lation Workshop, pages 73-81, Valetta, Malta.
  39. Gough, N. and Way, A. (2004b). Robust Large-Scale EBMT with Marker-Based Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Theoretical and Method- ological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-04), pages 95-104, Baltimore, MD.
  40. Green, T. (1979). The Necessity of Syntax Markers. Two experiments with artificial languages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 18:481-496.
  41. Groves, D., Hearne, M., and Way, A. (2004). Robust Sub-Sentential Alignment of Phrase-Structure Trees. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-04), pages 1072-1078, Geneva, Switzerland.
  42. Groves, D. and Way, A. (2005). Hybrid Example-Based SMT: the Best of Both Worlds? In Proceedings of the ACL 2005 Workshop on Building and Using Parallel Texts: Data-Driven Machine Translation and Beyond, pages 183-190, Ann Arbor, MI. Groves, D. and Way, A. (2006a). Hybrid Data-Driven Models of MT. In Machine Translation, Special Issue on EBMT. (in press).
  43. Groves, D. and Way, A. (2006b). Hybridity in MT: Experiments on the Europarl Corpus. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 115-124, Oslo, Norway.
  44. Hassan, H., Hearne, M., Sima'an, K., and Way, A. (2006). Syntactic Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2006 Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, Palm Beach, Aruba (to appear).
  45. Hearne, M. (2005). Data-Oriented Models of Parsing and Translation. PhD Thesis, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
  46. Hearne, M. and Way, A. (2003). Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Data-Oriented Translation. In Machine Translation Summit IX, pages 165-172, New Orleans, LA.
  47. Hearne, M. and Way, A. (2006). Disambiguation Strategies for Data-Oriented Translation. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 59-68, Oslo, Norway.
  48. Hutchins, J. (2005). Towards a Definition of Example-Based Machine Translation. In Machine Translation Summit X: Second Workshop on Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 63-70, Phuket, Thailand.
  49. Hutchins, J. and Somers, H. (1992). An Introduction to Machine Translation, pages 161 -174. Academic Press, London.
  50. Imamura, K., Okuma, H., Watanabe, T., and Sumita, E. (2004). Example-based Machine Translation Based on Syntactic Transfer with Statistical Models. In Pro- ceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COL- ING 2004), pages 99-105, Geneva, Switzerland.
  51. Jelinek, F. (1998). Statistical Methods for Speech Recognition, chapter 5. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  52. Jelinek, F. and Mercer, R. L. (1980). Interpolated Estimation of Markov Source Parameters from Sparse Data. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Pattern Recog- nition in Practice, pages 381-402, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
  53. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing: An In- troduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  54. Kaji, H., Kida, Y., and Morimoto, Y. (1992). Learning Translation Templates from Bilingual Text. In Proceedings of the 15th [sic] Internation Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-92), pages 672-678, Nantes, France.
  55. Kaplan, R. and Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical Functional Grammar, a Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In Bresnan, J., editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pages 173-281. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  56. Karlsson, F., Voutilainen, A., Heikkila, J., and Anttila, A. (1995). Constraint Grammar: A Language-Independent System for Parsing Unrestricted Text. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
  57. Kay, M. (1997). The Proper Place of Men and Machines in Language Translation. Machine Translation, 12(1):3-23.
  58. Khadivi, S. and Ney, H. (2005). Automatic Filtering of Bilingual Corpora for Statistical Machine Translation. In In Proceedings 10th International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2005, pages 263-274, Alicante, Spain. Springer Verlag.
  59. Kneser, R. and Ney, H. (1995). Improved Backing-off for M-gram Language Mod- eling. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, volume 1, pages 181-184. Detroit, MI.
  60. Knight, K. (1999). Decoding Complexity in Word-Replacement Translation Mod- els. Computational Linguistics, 25(4):607-615.
  61. Koehn, P. (2004a). Pharaoh: A Beam Search Decoder for Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation Models. In Frederking, R. and Taylor, K., editors, Machine Translation: From Real Users to Research; AMTA 2004, LNAI 3265, pages 115- 124.
  62. Koehn, P. (2004b). Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Eval- uation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2004), pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain.
  63. Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. In Machine Translation Summit X, pages 79-86, Phuket, Thailand.
  64. Koehn, P., Och, F., and Marcu, D. (2003). Statistical Phrase-Based Translation. In Human Language Technology Conference (HLT-NAACL), pages 48-54, Edmonton, Canada.
  65. Langlais, P. and Simard, M. (2002). Merging Example-Based and Statistical Ma- chine Translation. Machine Translation: From Research to Real Users, AMTA- 2002, LNAI 2499, pages 104-113.
  66. Lee, Y.-S. (2004). Morphological Analysis for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Human Language Technology Conference and the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL-04), pages 57-60, Lisbon, Portugal.
  67. Leusch, G., Ueffing, N., and Ney, H. (2006). CDER: Efficient MT Evaluation Using Block Movements. In Proceedings of 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Compuatational Linguistics (EACL-06), pages 241-248, Trento, Italy. Levenshtein, V. I. (1965). Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Spurious Insertions and Deletions of Ones. Problems of Information Transition, 1:8-17.
  68. Lidstone, G. J. (1920). Note on the General Case of the Bayes-Laplace forumla for Inductive or a posteriori Probabilities. Transactions of the Faculty of Actuaries, 8:192-192.
  69. Marcu, D. (2001). Towards a Unified Approach to Memory-and Statistical-Based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Compuatational Linguistics and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, pages 378-385, Toulouse, France.
  70. Marcu, D., Wang, W., Echihabi, A., and Knight, K. (2006). SPMT: Statistical Machine Translation with Syntactified Target Language Phrases. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 44-52, Sydney, Australia.
  71. Marcu, D. and Wong, W. (2002). A Phrase-Based Joint Probability Model for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2002), pages 133-139, Philadel- phia, PA.
  72. Marcus, M., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K., and Schasberger, B. (1994). The Penn Treebank: Annotating Predicate Argument Structure. In Proceedings of the ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop, pages 114-119, Princeton, New Jersey.
  73. Maruyama, H. and Watanabe, H. (1992). Tree Cover Search Algorithm for Example-Based Translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Theoret- ical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-92), pages 173-184, Montréal, Canada.
  74. Matsumoto, Y., Ishimoto, H., and Utsuro, T. (1993). Structural Matching of Parallel Texts. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 23-30, Columbus, OH.
  75. Mellebeek, B., Owczarzak, K., Groves, D., van Genabith, J., and Way, A. (2006).
  76. A Syntactic Skeleton for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 195-202, Oslo, Norway.
  77. Nagao, M. (1984). A Framework of a Mechanical Translation between Japanese and English by Analogy Principle. In Elithorn, A. and Banerji, R., editors, Artificial and Human Intelligence, pages 173-180. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  78. Nie, J.-Y. and Cai, J. (2001). Filtering Noisy Parallel Corpora of Web Pages. In IEEE Symposium on NLP and Knowledge Engineering, pages 453-458, Tuscon, AZ. Nirenburg, S., Domashnev, C., and Grannes, D. J. (1993). Two Approaches to Matching in Example-Based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Fifth In- ternational Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Trans- lation TMI '93: MT in the Next Generation, pages 47-57, Kyoto, Japan.
  79. Och, F. J. (1999). An Efficient Method to Determine Bilingual Word Classes.
  80. In EACL '99: Ninth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 71-76, Bergen, Norway.
  81. Och, F. J. (2003). Minimum Error Rate Training in Statistical Machine Transla- tion. In Proceedings of 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-03), pages 160-167, Sapporo, Japan.
  82. Och, F. J. and Ney, H. (2002). Discriminative Training and Maximum Entropy Models for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pages 295- 302, Philadelphia, PA.
  83. Och, F. J. and Ney, H. (2003). A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models. Computational Linguistics, 29:19-51.
  84. Och, F. J., Tillmann, C., and Ney, H. (1999). Improved Alignment Models for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora, pages 20-28, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
  85. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.-J. (2001). BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. Technical report, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.
  86. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.-J. (2002). BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pages 311- 318, Philadelphia, PA.
  87. Paul, M., Doi, T., Hwang, Y., Imamura, K., and Sumita, E. (2005a). Nobody is Perfect: ATR's Hybrid Approach to Spoken Language Translation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2005), pages 55-62, Pittsburgh, PA.
  88. Paul, M., Sumita, E., and Yamamoto, S. (2005b). A Machine Learning Approach to Hypothesis Selection of Greedy Decoding for SMT. In Machine Translation Summit X: Second Workshop on Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 117- 124, Phuket, Thailand.
  89. Planas, E. and Furuse, O. (2003). Formalizing Translation Memory. In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 157-188. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  90. Poutsma, A. (2000). Data-Oriented Translation: Using the Data-Oriented Parsing framework for Machine Translation. Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  91. Poutsma, A. (2003). Machine Translation with Tree-DOP. In Bod, R., Scha, R., and Sima'an, K., editors, Data-Oriented Parsing, pages 339-357. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
  92. Quirk, C. and Menezes, A. (2006). Dependency Treelet Translation: the conver- gence of statistical and example-based machine translation? In Machine Transla- tion, Special Issue on EBMT. (in press).
  93. Sato, S. and Nagao, M. (1990). Toward Memory-Based Translation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-90), volume 3, pages 247-252, Helsinki, Finland.
  94. Schäler, R. (1996). Machine Translation, Translation Memories and the Phrasal Lexicon: the Localisation Perspective. In Proceedings of the First Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation: Language Resources, Terminology, Economics and User Needs, pages 21-33, Vienna, Austria.
  95. Shen, W., Delaney, B., and Anderson, T. (2006). The MITLL/AFRL
  96. TC-Star System: Experiments with Large Vocabulary Speech Translation. In TC-Star OpenLab on Speech Translation, Trento, Italy. Slides at http://tc-star.org/openlab2006/day3/Wade TC-Star-Openlab-presentation-v1a.pdf.
  97. Somers, H. (1999). Review Article: Example-based Machine Translation. Machine Translation, 14(2):113-157.
  98. Somers, H. (2003). An Overview of EBMT. In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 3-57. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  99. Somers, H., McLean, I., and Jones, D. (1994). Experiments in Multilingual Example-Based Generation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on the Cog- nitive Science of Natural Language Processing (CSNLP-94), [pages not numbered], Dublin, Ireland.
  100. Stolcke, A. (2002). SRILM -An Extensible Language Modeling Toolkit. In Proceed- ings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, volume 2, pages 901-904, Denver, CO.
  101. Stroppa, N., Groves, D., Way, A., and Sarasola, K. (2006). Example-Based Machine Translation of the Basque Language. In Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 232-241, Boston, MA. Stroppa, N. and Way, A. (2006). MaTrEx: DCU Machine Translation System for IWSLT 2006. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, pages 31-36, Kyoto, Japan.
  102. Sumita, E. (2003). EBMT Using DP-Matching Between Word Sequences. In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 189-210. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  103. Sumita, E., Iida, H., and Kohyama, H. (1990). Translating With Examples: A New Approach to Machine Translation. In Third International Conference on Theoreti- cal and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, pages 203-212, Austin, TX.
  104. Tiedemann, J. (2004). Word to Word Alignment Strategies. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004), pages 212-218, Geneva, Switzerland.
  105. Tillmann, C. and Ney, H. (2000). Word Re-Ordering and DP-Based Search in Statistical Machine Translation. In The 18th International Conference on Compu- tational Linguistics (COLING-00), pages 850-856, Saarbrücken, Germany.
  106. Tillmann, C., Vogel, S., Ney, H., Zubiaga, A., and Sawaf, H. (1997). Accelerated DP Based Search for Statistical Translation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 2667-2670, Rhodes, Greece.
  107. Turcato, D. and Popowich, F. (2003). What is Example-Based Machine Trans- lation? In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 59-79. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  108. Turian, J., Shen, L., and Melamed, I. D. (2003). Evaluation of Machine Transla- tion and its Evaluation. In Machine Translation Summit IX, pages 386-393, New Orleans, LA.
  109. Ueffing, N., Och, F., and Ney, H. (2002). Generation of Word Graphs in Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 156-163, Philadelphia, PA.
  110. Veale, T. and Way, A. (1997). Gaijin: A Bootstrapping Approach to Example- Based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP-97), pages 239-244, Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria.
  111. Vogel, S. and Ney, H. (2000). Construction of a Hierarchical Translation Memory. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: COLING 2000 in Europe, pages 1131-1135, Saarbrücken, Germany.
  112. Vogel, S., Zhang, Y., Huang, F., Tribble, A., Venugopal, A., Zhao, B., and Waibel, A. (2003). The CMU Statistical Machine Translation System. In Proceedings of MT Summit IX, pages 110-117, New Orleans, LA.
  113. Wagner, R. A. and Fischer, M. J. (1974). The String-to-String Correction Problem. Journal of the Association of Computing Machinery, 21(1):168-173.
  114. Watanabe, H. (1992). A Similarity-Driven Transfer System. In Proceedings of the 15th [sic] International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-1992), pages 770-776, Nantes, France.
  115. Watanabe, H., Kurohashi, S., and Aramaki, E. (2003). Finding translation patterns from paired source and target dependency structures. In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 397-420.
  116. Way, A. (2003). Translating With Examples: the LFG-DOT Models of Transla- tion.
  117. In Carl, M. and Way, A., editors, Recent Advances in Example-Based Machine Translation, pages 443-472. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nether- lands.
  118. Way, A. and Gough, N. (2003). wEBMT : Developing and Validating an Example- Based Machine Translation System using the World Wide Web. Computational Linguistics: Special Issue on the Web as Corpus, 29(3):421-457.
  119. Way, A. and Gough, N. (2005a). Comparing Example-Based and Statistical Ma- chine Translation. Natural Language Engineering, 11(3):295-309.
  120. Way, A. and Gough, N. (2005b). Controlled Translation in an Example-Based En- vironment: what do Automatic Evaluation Metrics tell us? Machine Translation, 19(2):1-36.
  121. Weaver, W. (1949). Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Commu- nication. In Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W., editors, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, pages 94-117. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
  122. Wu, D. (2006). MT Model Space: Statistical vs. Compositional vs. Example-Based Machine Translation. In Machine Translation, Special Issue on EBMT. (in press).
  123. Yamada, K. and Knight, K. (2001). A Syntax-Based Statistical Translation Model. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics and 15th Conference of the European Chapter, pages 523-530, Toulouse, France.
  124. Yamada, K. and Knight, K. (2002). A Decoder for Syntax-Based Statistical SMT. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 303-310, Philadelphia, PA.
  125. Zens, R., Bender, O., Hasan, S., Khadivi, S., Matsuov, E., Xu, J., Zhang, Y., and Ney, H. (2005). The RWTH Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation System. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spoken Language Trans- lation (IWSLT-05), pages 155-162, Pittsburgh, PA.
  126. Zens, R. and Ney, H. (2004). Improvements in Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference / North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting (HLT-NAACL-04), pages 257-264, Boston, MA.
  127. Zens, R., Ney, H., Watanabe, T., and Sumita, E. (2004). Reordering Constraints for Phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation. In In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-04), pages 205- 211, Geneva, Switzerland.
  128. Zhang, Y. and Vogel, S. (2004). Measuring Confidence Intervals for Machine Trans- lation Evaluation Metrics. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-04), pages 4-6, Baltimore, MD.

Related papers

Is MT Fit For Purpose? A Comparative Evaluation of Two Machine Translation Systems
Bogdan Babych

translution.com

1 Executive Summary We evaluated the French-to-English versions of two rules based machine translation (MT) systems (referred to as s01 and s02 in this document) in order to assess the quality of their output and to determine whether updating the system dictionaries brought about an improvement in performance.

View PDFchevron_right
The Universität Karlsruhe translation system for the EACL-WMT 2009
Teresa Herrmann

Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation - StatMT '09, 2009

In this paper we describe the statistical machine translation system of the Universität Karlsruhe developed for the translation task of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. The state-ofthe-art phrase-based SMT system is augmented with alternative word reordering and alignment mechanisms as well as optional phrase table modifications. We participate in the constrained condition of German-English and English-German as well as in the constrained condition of French-English and English-French.

View PDFchevron_right
MT model space: statistical versus compositional versus example-based machine translation
Dekai Wu

Machine Translation, 2007

We offer a perspective on EBMT from a statistical MT standpoint, by developing a three-dimensional MT model space based on three pairs of definitions: (1) logical versus statistical MT, (2) schema-based versus example-based MT, and (3) lexical versus compositional MT. Within this space we consider the interplay of three key ideas in the evolution of transfer, example-based, and statistical approaches to MT. We depict how all translation models face these issues in one way or another, regardless of the school of thought, and suggest where the real questions for the future may lie.

View PDFchevron_right
LIUM's SMT machine translation systems for WMT 2011
Haithem Afli

Proceedings of the …, 2011

This paper describes the development of French-English and English-French statistical machine translation systems for the 2011 WMT shared task evaluation. Our main systems were standard phrase-based statistical systems based on the Moses decoder, trained on the provided data only, but we also performed initial experiments with hierarchical systems. Additional, new features this year include improved translation model adaptation using monolingual data, a continuous space language model and the treatment of unknown words.

View PDFchevron_right
Machine Translation Quality: A comparative evaluation of SMT, NMT and tailored NMT EAMT20200615 35731 tcccz0
Vilelmini Sosoni, MARIA STASIMIOTI, Despina Mouratidi

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 2020

The present study aims to compare three systems: a generic statistical machine translation, a generic neural machine translation and a tailored-NMT system focusing on the English to Greek language pair. The comparison is carried out following a mixed-methods approach, i.e. automatic metrics, as well as side-by-side ranking, adequacy and fluency rating, measurement of actual post editing effort and human error analysis performed by 16 postgraduate Translation students. The findings reveal a higher score for both the generic NMT and the tailored-NMT outputs as regards automatic metrics and human evaluation metrics, with the tailored-NMT output faring even better than the generic NMT output.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Machine Translation
  • Statistical Machine Translation
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved