Soft syntactic constraints for word alignment through discriminative training

COLING/ACL 2006 - 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Main Conference Poster Sessions

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 105-112

  Cherry, Colin ^a   Lin, Dekang ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b GOOGLE INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALIGNMENT; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

ALIGNERS; ALIGNMENT METHODS; DEPENDENCY TREES; DISCRIMINATIVE LEARNING; DISCRIMINATIVE TRAINING; HARD CONSTRAINTS; LEARNING METHODS; WORD ALIGNMENT;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 48749089289     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. P. F. Brown, S. A. Della Pietra, V. J. Della Pietra, and R. L. Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):263-312.
2. C. Cherry and D. Lin. 2003. A probability model to improve word alignment. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 88-95, Sapporo, Japan, July.
3. C. Cherry and D. Lin. 2006. A comparison of syntactically motivated word alignment spaces. In Proceedings of EACL, pages 145-152, Trento, Italy, April.
4. H. J. Fox. 2002. Phrasal cohesion and statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 304-311.
5. W. A. Gale and K. W. Church. 1991. Identifying word correspondences in parallel texts. In 4th Speech and Natural Language Workshop, pages 152-157. DARPA.
6. D. Gildea. 2003. Loosely tree-based alignment for machine translation. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 80-87, Sapporo, Japan.
7. D. Lin. 1994. Principar - an efficient, broad-coverage, principle-based parser. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 42-48, Kyoto, Japan.
8. Y. Liu, Q. Liu, and S. Lin. 2005. Log-linear models for word alignment. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 459-466, Ann Arbor, USA.
9. I. D. Melamed. 2000. Models of translational equivalence among words. Computational Linguistics, 26(2):221-249.
10. R. Mihalcea and T. Pedersen. 2003. An evaluation exercise for word alignment. In HLT-NAACL Workshop on Building and Using Parallel Texts, pages 1-10, Edmonton, Canada.
11. R. Moore. 2005. A discriminative framework for bilingual word alignment. In Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP, pages 81-88, Vancouver, Canada, October.
12. F. J. Och and H. Ney. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1):19-52, March.
13. B. Taskar, S. Lacoste-Julien, and D. Klein. 2005. A discriminative matching approach to word alignment. In Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP, pages 73-80, Vancouver, Canada.
14. I. Tsochantaridis, T. Hofman, T. Joachims, and Y. Altun. 2004. Support vector machine learning for interdependent and structured output spaces. In Proceedings of ICML, pages 823-830.
15. S. Vogel, H. Ney, and C. Tillmann. 1996. HMM-based word alignment in statistical translation. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 836-841, Copenhagen, Denmark.
16. D. West. 2001. Introduction to Graph Theory. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition.
17. D. Wu. 1997. Stochastic inversion transduction grammars and bilingual parsing of parallel corpora. Computational Linguistics, 23(3):377-403.
18. K. Yamada and K. Knight. 2001. A syntax-based statistical translation model. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 523-530.
19. H. Zhang and D. Gildea. 2004. Syntax-based alignment: Supervised or unsupervised? In Proceedings of COLING, Geneva, Switzerland, August.