Empirical lower bounds on translation unit error rate for the full class of inversion transduction grammars

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, IWPT 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 33-36

  Søgaard, Anders ^a   Wu, Dekai ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; COMPUTER AIDED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION; FAILURE RATE; MACHINE TRANSLATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

% REDUCTIONS; ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE; ERROR RATE; EVALUATION MEASURES; INVERSION TRANSDUCTION GRAMMARS; LOW BOUND; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; NORMAL FORM; SENTENCE LEVEL; TRANSLATION UNIT;

BACTERIOPHAGES;

EID: 84855697198     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Alfred Aho and Jeffrey Ullman. 1972. The theory of parsing, translation and compiling. Prentice-Hall.
2. Necip Ayan and Bonnie Dorr. 2006. Going beyond AER. In COLING-ACL'06, Sydney, Australia.
3. Heidi Fox. 2002. Phrasal cohesion and statistical machine translation. In EMNLP'02, Philadelphia, PA.
4. Alexander Fraser and Daniel Marcu. 2007. Measuring word alignment quality for statistical machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 33(3):293-303.
5. Cyril Goutte, Kenji Yamada, and Eric Gaussier. 2004. Aligning words using matrix factorisation. In ACL'04, Barcelona, Spain.
6. Joao Graca, Joana Pardal, Luísa Coheur, and Diamantino Caseiro. 2008. Building a golden collection of parallel multi-language word alignments. In LREC'08, Marrakech, Morocco.
7. Liang Huang, Hao Zhang, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. Machine translation as lexicalized parsing with hooks. In IWPT'05, pages 65-73, Vancouver, BC.
8. Yves Lepage and Etienne Denoual. 2005. Purest ever example-based machine translation. Machine Translation, 19(3-4):251-282.
9. Lieve Macken. 2007. Analysis of translational correspondence in view of sub-sentential alignment. In METIS-II, pages 9-18, Leuven, Belgium.
10. Franz Och and Hermann Ney. 2000. A comparison of alignment models for statistical machine translation. In COLING'00, Saarbrücken, Germany.
11. Sebastian Padó and Mirella Lapata. 2006. Optimal constituent alignment with edge covers for semantic projection. In ACL-COLING'06, Sydney, Australia.
12. Giorgio Satta and Enoch Peserico. 2005. Some computational complexity results for synchronous context-free grammars. In HLT-EMNLP'05, Vancouver, BC.
13. Stuart Shieber. 2007. Probabilistic synchronous tree-adjoining grammars for machine translation. In SSST'07, pages 88-95, Rochester, NY.
14. Michel Simard and colleagues. 2005. Translating with non-contiguous phrases. In HLT-EMNLP'05, Vancouver, BC.
15. Anders Søgaard and Jonas Kuhn. 2009. Empirical lower bounds on alignment error rates in syntax-based machine translation. In NAACL-HLT'09, SSST-3, Boulder, CO.
16. Anders Søgaard. 2009. On the complexity of alignment problems in two synchronous grammar formalisms. In NAACL-HLT'09, SSST-3, Boulder, CO.
17. Benjamin Wellington, Sonjia Waxmonsky, and Dan Melamed. 2006. Empirical lower bounds on the complexity of translational equivalence. In ACL'06, pages 977-984, Sydney, Australia.
18. Dekai Wu. 1997. Stochastic inversion transduction grammars and bilingual parsing of parallel corpora. Computational Linguistics, 23(3):377-403.
19. Richard Zens and Hermann Ney. 2003. A comparative study on reordering constraints in statistical machine translation. In ACL'03, Sapporo, Japan.
20. Hao Zhang and Daniel Gildea. 2004. Syntax-based alignment: supervised or unsupervised? In COLING'04, pages 418-424, Geneva, Switzerland.