Binarizing syntax trees to improve syntax-based machine translation accuracy

EMNLP-CoNLL 2007 - Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 746-754

  Wang, Wei ^a   Knight, Kevin ^a   Marcu, Daniel ^a  

^a Language Weaver Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINARIZATIONS; EM ALGORITHMS; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; PARSE TREES; PHRASE STRUCTURE; SYNTAX TREE; TREEBANKS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; INFORMATION THEORY; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; PLANT EXTRACTS; SYNTACTICS; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

TRANSLATION (LANGUAGES);

EID: 72249097261     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. E. Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, May.
2. David Chiang. 2007. Hierarchical phrase-based translation. Computational Linguistics, 33(2).
3. Michael Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalized models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 16-23, Madrid, Spain, July.
4. A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39(1):1-38.
5. Jason Eisner. 2003. Learning non-isomorphic tree mappings for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 205-208, Sapporo, July.
6. M. Galley, M. Hopkins, K. Knight, and D. Marcu. 2004. What's in a Translation Rule? In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and the North American Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL), Boston, Massachusetts.
7. M. Galley, J. Graehl, K. Knight, D. Marcu, S. DeNeefe, W.Wang, and I. Thayer. 2006. Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Models. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
8. Joshua Goodman. 1999. Semiring parsing. Computational Linguistics, 25(4):573-605.
9. M. Johnson. 1998. The DOP estimation method is biased and inconsistent. Computational Linguistics, 28(1):71-76.
10. K. Knight and J. Graehl. 2004. Training Tree Transducers. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT.
11. K. Lari and S. Young. 1990. The estimation of stochastic context-free grammars using the inside-outside algorithm. Computer Speech and Language, pages 35-56.
12. Daniel Marcu, Wei Wang, Abdessamad Echihabi, and Kevin Knight. 2006. SPMT: Statistical machine translation with syntactified target language phraases. In Proceedings of EMNLP-2006, pp. 44-52, Sydney, Australia.
13. M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.
14. I. Dan Melamed, Giorgio Satta, and Benjamin Wellington. 2004. Generalized multitext grammars. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Barcelona, Spain.
15. Stefan Riezler and John T. Maxwell. 2005. On some pitfalls in automatic evaluation and significance testing for MT. In Proc. ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for MT and/or Summarization.
16. Radu Soricut. 2004. A reimplementation of Collins's parsing models. Technical report, Information Sciences Institute, Department of Computer Science University of Southern California.
17. Hao Zhang, Liang Huang, Daniel Gildea, and Kevin Knight. 2006. Synchronous binarization for machine translation. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL.