Quasi-synchronous phrase dependency grammars for machine translation

EMNLP 2011 - Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 474-485

  Gimpel, Kevin ^a   Smith, Noah A ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon Univeristy ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COARSE-TO-FINE; DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR; DEPENDENCY PARSER; DEPENDENCY PARSING; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; PARALLEL TEXT; PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS; QUASI-SYNCHRONOUS; STRUCTURAL COMPONENT;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; INFORMATION THEORY; TRANSLATION (LANGUAGES);

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 80053220405     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (52)

1. M. Auli, A. Lopez, H. Hoang, and P. Koehn. 2009. A systematic analysis of translation model search spaces. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
2. S. Bergsma and C. Cherry. 2010. Fast and accurate arc filtering for dependency parsing. In Proc. of COLING.
3. P. Blunsom and T. Cohn. 2010. Unsupervised induction of tree substitution grammars for dependency parsing. In Proc. of EMNLP.
4. P. F. Brown, P. V. deSouza, R. L. Mercer, V. J. Della Pietra, and J. C. Lai. 1992. Class-based n-gram models of natural language. Computational Linguistics, 18.
5. X. Carreras and M. Collins. 2009. Non-projective parsing for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of EMNLP.
6. P. Chang, M. Galley, and C. Manning. 2008. Optimizing Chinese word segmentation for machine translation performance. In Proc. of the Third Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
7. S. Chen and J. Goodman. 1998. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Technical report 10-98, Harvard University.
8. D. Chiang. 2005. A hierarchical phrase-based model for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.
9. D. Das and N. A. Smith. 2009. Paraphrase identification as probabilistic quasi-synchronous recognition. In Proc. of ACL-IJCNLP.
10. S. DeNeefe, K. Knight, W. Wang, and D. Marcu. 2007. What can syntax-based MT learn from phrase-based MT? In Proc. of EMNLP-CoNLL.
11. J. DeNero, S. Kumar, C. Chelba, and F. J. Och. 2010. Model combination for machine translation. In Proc. of NAACL.
12. M. Dymetman and N. Cancedda. 2010. Intersecting hierarchical and phrase-based models of translation. formal aspects and algorithms. In Proc. of SSST-4.
13. J. Eisner, E. Goldlust, and N. A. Smith. 2005. Compiling Comp Ling: Practical weighted dynamic programming and the Dyna language. In Proc. of HLT-EMNLP.
14. J. Eisner. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In Proc. of COLING.
15. R. W. Floyd. 1962. Algorithm 97: Shortest path. Communications of the ACM, 5(6).
16. M. Galley and C. D. Manning. 2009. Quadratic-time dependency parsing for machine translation. In Proc. of ACL-IJCNLP.
17. M. Galley and C. D. Manning. 2010. Accurate non-hierarchical phrase-based translation. In Proc. of NAACL.
18. M. Galley, J. Graehl, K. Knight, D. Marcu, S. DeNeefe, W. Wang, and I. Thayer. 2006. Scalable inference and training of context-rich syntactic translation models. In Proc. of COLING-ACL.
19. K. Gimpel and N. A. Smith. 2009. Feature-rich translation by quasi-synchronous lattice parsing. In Proc. of EMNLP.
20. K. Gimpel and N. A. Smith. 2011. Concavity and initialization for unsupervised dependency grammar induction. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University.
21. L. Huang, K. Knight, and A. Joshi. 2006. Statistical syntax-directed translation with extended domain of locality. In Proc. of AMTA.
22. D. Klein and C. D. Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proc. of ACL.
23. P. Koehn, F. J. Och, and D. Marcu. 2003. Statistical phrase-based translation. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL.
24. P. Koehn, A. Axelrod, A. Birch Mayne, C. Callison-Burch, M. Osborne, and D. Talbot. 2005. Edinburgh system description for the 2005 iwslt speech translation evaluation. In Proc. of IWSLT.
25. P. Koehn, H. Hoang, A. Birch, C. Callison-Burch, M. Federico, N. Bertoldi, B. Cowan, W. Shen, C. Moran, R. Zens, C. Dyer, O. Bojar, A. Constantin, and E. Herbst. 2007. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of ACL (demo session).
26. R. Levy and C. D. Manning. 2003. Is it harder to parse chinese, or the chinese treebank? In Proc. of ACL.
27. P. Liang. 2005. Semi-supervised learning for natural language. Master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
28. Y. Liu, H. Mi, Y. Feng, and Q. Liu. 2009. Joint decoding with multiple translation models. In Proc. of ACL-IJCNLP.
29. A. Lopez. 2008. Tera-scale translation models via pattern matching. In Proc. of COLING.
30. W. Macherey, F. Och, I. Thayer, and J. Uszkoreit. 2008. Lattice-based minimum error rate training for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP.
31. M. P. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19:313-330.
32. A. F. T. Martins, N. A. Smith, and E. P. Xing. 2009. Concise integer linear programming formulations for dependency parsing. In Proc. of ACL.
33. M.-J. Nederhof. 2003. Weighted deductive parsing and knuth's algorithm. Computational Linguistics, 29(1).
34. F. J. Och and H. Ney. 2002. Discriminative training and maximum entropy models for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.
35. F. J. Och and H. Ney. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1).
36. F. J. Och. 2003. Minimum error rate training for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.
37. K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.J. Zhu. 2001. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proc. of ACL.
38. S. Petrov. 2009. Coarse-to-Fine Natural Language Processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
39. C. Quirk, A. Menezes, and C. Cherry. 2005. Dependency treelet translation: Syntactically informed phrasal SMT. In Proc. of ACL.
40. L. Shen, J. Xu, and R. Weischedel. 2008. A new string-to-dependency machine translation algorithm with a target dependency language model. In Proc. of ACL.
41. A. Sixtus and S. Ortmanns. 1999. High quality word graphs using forward-backward pruning. In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.
42. D. A. Smith and J. Eisner. 2006. Quasi-synchronous grammars: Alignment by soft projection of syntactic dependencies. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
43. D. A. Smith and J. Eisner. 2009. Parser adaptation and projection with quasi-synchronous features. In Proc. of EMNLP.
44. A. Stolcke. 2002. SRILM - an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proc. of ICSLP.
45. K. Toutanova, D. Klein, C. D. Manning, and Y. Singer. 2003. Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL.
46. R. Tromble, S. Kumar, F. Och, and W. Macherey. 2008. Lattice Minimum Bayes-Risk decoding for statistical machine translation. In EMNLP.
47. N. Ueffing, F. J. Och, and H. Ney. 2002. Generation of word graphs in statistical machine translation. In Proc. of EMNLP.
48. M. Wang, N. A. Smith, and T. Mitamura. 2007. What is the Jeopardy model? a quasi-synchronous grammar for QA. In Proc. of EMNLP-CoNLL.
49. Y. Wu, Q. Zhang, X. Huang, and L. Wu. 2009. Phrase dependency parsing for opinion mining. In Proc. of EMNLP.
50. N. Xue, F. Xia, F.-D. Chiou, and M. Palmer. 2004. The Penn Chinese Treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering, 10(4):1-30.
51. A. Zollmann and A. Venugopal. 2006. Syntax augmented machine translation via chart parsing. In Proc. of NAACL 2006 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
52. A. Zollmann, A. Venugopal, F. J. Och, and J. Ponte. 2008. A systematic comparison of phrase-based, hierarchical and syntax-augmented statistical MT. In Proc. of COLING.