Dependencies vs. constituents for tree-based alignment

Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2004 - A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL held in conjunction with ACL 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 214-221

  Gildea, Daniel ^a  

^a University of Rochester   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

MATCH NODES; PARSED CORPORA; PROBABILISTIC TREES; PROBABILITY MODELLING; SYNTACTIC TREES; TREE ALIGNMENT; TREE-BASED; WORD LEVEL;

ALIGNMENT;

EID: 37149016113     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Daniel M. Bikel. 2002. Design of a multi-lingual, parallel-processing statistical parsing engine. In Proceedings ARPA Workshop on Human Language Technology.
2. Peter F. Brown, John Cocke, Stephen A. Della Pietra, Vincent J. Della Pietra, Frederick Jelinek, John D. Lafferty, Robert L. Mercer, and Paul S. Roossin. 1990. A statistical approach to machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 16(2):79-85, June.
3. Peter F. Brown, Stephen A. Della Pietra, Vincent J. Della Pietra, and Robert L. Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):263-311.
4. Michael John Collins. 1999. Head-driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
5. Yuan Ding and Martha Palmer. 2004. Automatic learning of parallel dependency treelet pairs. In The First International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP).
6. Jason Eisner. 2003. Learning non-isomorphic tree mappings for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, companion volume, Sapporo, Japan.
7. Heidi J. Fox. 2002. Phrasal cohesion and statistical machine translation. In In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2002), pages 304-311.
8. Michel Galley, Mark Hopkins, Kevin Knight, and Daniel Marcu. 2004. What's in a translation rule? In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference/North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT/NAACL).
9. Daniel Gildea. 2003. Loosely tree-based alignment for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 41th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-03), pages 80-87, Sapporo, Japan.
10. Rebecca Hwa, Philip Resnik, Amy Weinberg, and Okan Kolak. 2002. Evaluating translational correspondence using annotation projection. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02).
11. Roger Levy and Christopher Manning. 2003. Is it harder to parse Chinese, or the Chinese Treebank? In Proceedings of the 41th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-03), Sapporo, Japan.
12. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-330, June.
13. Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2000. Improved statistical alignment models. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-00), pages 440-447, Hong Kong, October.
14. Dekai Wu. 1997. Stochastic inversion transduction grammars and bilingual parsing of parallel corpora. Computational Linguistics, 23(3):377-403.
15. Nianwen Xue and Fei Xia. 2000. The bracketing guidelines for the penn chinese treebank. Technical Report IRCS-00-08, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania.
16. Kenji Yamada and Kevin Knight. 2001. A syntax-based statistical translation model. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-01), Toulouse, France.