The DCU Dependency-Based Metric in WMT-MetricsMATR 2010

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 349-353

  He, Yifan ^a   Du, Jinhua ^a   Way, Andy ^a   van Genabith, Josef ^a  

^a DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALIGNERS; DEPENDENCY PARSER; HUMAN JUDGMENTS; METRICSMATR; OPEN-SOURCE; SOURCE DEPENDENCY; STRUCTURE-BASED;

EID: 84883383887     PISSN: 0736587X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 65–72, Ann Arbor, MI.
2. Aoife Cahill, Michael Burke, Ruth O’Donovan, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2004. Long-distance dependency resolution in automatically acquired wide-coverage PCFG-based LFG approximations. In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2004), pages 319–326, Barcelona, Spain.
3. Chris Callison-Burch, Miles Osborne, and Philipp Koehn. 2006. Re-evaluation the role of bleu in machine translation research. In Proceedings of 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 249–256, Trento, Italy.
4. Rong-En Fan, Kai-Wei Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Xiang-Rui Wang, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2008. Liblinear: A library for large linear classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:1871–1874.
5. Jeremy G. Kahn, Matthew Snover, and Mari Ostendorf. 2010. Expected dependency pair match: predicting translation quality with expected syntactic structure. Machine Translation.
6. Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, pages 173–281.
7. Alon Lavie and Michael J. Denkowski. 2009. he meteor metric for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Machine Translation, 23(2-3).
8. Ding Liu and Daniel Gildea. 2005. Syntactic features for evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 25–32, Ann Arbor, MI.
9. Joakim Nivre, Johan Hall, and Jens Nilsson. 2006. Malt-parser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing. In In The fifth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2006), pages 2216–2219, Genoa, Italy.
10. Karolina Owczarzak, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2007. Labelled dependencies in machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 104–111, Prague, Czech Republic.
11. Sebastian Pado, Michel Galley, Dan Jurafsky, and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Robust machine translation evaluation with entailment features. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 297–305, Suntec, Singapore.
12. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2002), pages 311–318, Philadelphia, PA.
13. William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flannery. 2007. Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
14. Matthew Snover, Nitin Madnani, Bonnie Dorr, and Richard Schwartz. 2010. Ter-plus: paraphrase, semantic, and alignment enhancements to translation edit rate. Machine Translation.