Weakly supervised approaches for quality estimation

Machine Translation

Volumn 27, Issue 3-4, 2013, Pages 257-280

  Moreau, Erwan ^a   Vogel, Carl ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Quality estimation; Unsupervised learning; Weakly supervised learning

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION; EVALUATION METHODS; QUALITY ESTIMATION; SMALL TRAINING; SUPERVISED LEARNING APPROACHES; WEAKLY SUPERVISED LEARNING;

ESTIMATION; SUPERVISED LEARNING; UNSUPERVISED LEARNING;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84890313539     PISSN: 09226567     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10590-013-9142-8     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Callison-Burch C, Koehn P, Monz C, Post M, Soricut R, Specia L (2012) Findings of the 2012 workshop on statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the seventh workshop on statistical machine translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal
2. Gamon M, Aue A, Smets M (2005) Sentence-level MT evaluation without reference translations: beyond language modeling. In: Proceedings of EAMT, pp 103-111
3. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I (2009) The weka data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10-18
4. He Y, Ma Y, van Genabith J, Way A (2010) Bridging SMT and TM with translation recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, pp 622-630
5. Koehn P (2005) Europarl: a parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In: MT summit, vol 5
6. Quinlan J (1992) Learning with continuous classes. In: Proceedings of the 5th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, Singapore, pp 343-348
7. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
8. Schütze C (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: grammaticality judgements and linguistic methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
9. Schütze C (2005) Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In: Kepsar S, Reis M (eds) Linguistic evidence: empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Studies in generative grammar, vol 85. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 457-485
10. Shevade S, Keerthi S, Bhattacharyya C, Murthy K (2000) Improvements to the SMO algorithm for SVM regression. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 11(5):1188-1193
11. Smola A, Schölkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14(3):199-222
12. Soricut R, Echihabi A (2010) Trustrank: inducing trust in automatic translations via ranking. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, pp 612-621
13. Soricut R, Bach N, Wang Z (2012) The SDL language weaver systems in the WMT12 quality estimation shared task. In: Proceedings of the seventh workshop on statistical machine translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, pp 145-151. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W12-3118
14. Specia L, Turchi M, Cancedda N, Dymetman M, Cristianini N (2009) Estimating the sentence-level quality of machine translation systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference of the European association for machine translation, pp 28-35
15. Specia L, Hajlaoui N, Hallett C, Aziz W (2011) Predicting machine translation adequacy. In: Machine translation summit XIII, Xiamen
16. Stolcke A et al (2002) SRILM-an extensible language modeling toolkit. In: Proceedings of the international conference on spoken language processing, vol 2, pp 901-904
17. Wang Y, Witten I (1996) Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes. Working paper series. University of Waikato, Hamilton
18. Wickham H (2009) Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York