Machine translation evaluation using recurrent neural networks

10th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, WMT 2015 at the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015 - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 380-384

  Gupta, Rohit ^a   Ořasan, Constantin ^a   Van Genabith, Josef ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b GERMAN RESEARCH CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DFKI   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; COMPUTER AIDED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; NEURAL MACHINE TRANSLATION; VECTOR SPACES;

EVALUATION METRICS; EXTERNAL RESOURCES; LEVEL CORRELATION; MACHINE TRANSLATION EVALUATIONS; MEMORY NETWORK; STATE OF THE ART; SYSTEM LEVELS; TRUESKILL;

LONG SHORT-TERM MEMORY;

EID: 85019809084     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Yoshua Bengio, Patrice Simard, and Paolo Frasconi. 1994. Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(2):157-166.
2. Alexandra Birch and Miles Osborne. 2011. Reordering metrics for MT. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 1027-1035. Association for Computational Linguistics.
3. Ondřej Bojar, Rajen Chatterjee, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Matteo Negri, and Lucia Specia. 2013. Findings of the 2013Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 1-44, Sofia, Bulgaria, August. Association for Computational Linguistics.
4. Michael Collins and Nigel Duffy. 2001. Convolution kernels for natural language. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 625-632.
5. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Bill MacCartney, Christopher D Manning, et al. 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proceedings of LREC, volume 6, pages 449-454.
6. Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
7. George Doddington. 2002. Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram cooccurrence statistics. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Human Language Technology Research, pages 138-145. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
8. Shubham Gautam and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2014. Layered: Metric for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
9. Jesús Giménez and Lluís Màrquez. 2010. Linguistic measures for automatic machine translation evaluation. Machine Translation, 24(3-4):209-240.
10. Rohit Gupta, Constantin Orǎsan, and Josef van Genabith. 2015. Reval: A simple and effective machine translation evaluation metric based on recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Lisbon, Portugal.
11. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735-1780.
12. Shafiq Joty, Francisco Guzmán, Lluís Màrquez, and Preslav Nakov. 2014. DiscoTK: Using Discourse Structure for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
13. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proceedings of The 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1188-1196.
14. Matouš Machácek and Ondrej Bojar. 2014. Results of the WMT-14 metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation.
15. Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. A sick cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In Proceedings of LREC 2014.
16. Tomas Mikolov, Quoc V Le, and Ilya Sutskever. 2013a. Exploiting Similarities among Languages for Machine Translation. CoRR, pages 1-10.
17. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3111-3119.
18. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, ToddWard, andWei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the ACL, pages 311-318.
19. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the Empiricial Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014), pages 1532-1543.
20. Matthew Snover, Nitin Madnani, Bonnie Dorr, and Richard Schwartz. 2008. TERp system description. In MetricsMATR workshop at AMTA. Citeseer.
21. Richard Socher, Eh Huang, and Jeffrey Pennington. 2011. Dynamic Pooling and Unfolding Recursive Autoencoders for Paraphrase Detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 801-809.
22. Richard Socher, John Bauer, Christopher D. Manning, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2013a. Parsing With Compositional Vector Grammars. In Proceedings of the ACL, pages 455-465.
23. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, and Jy Wu. 2013b. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 1631-1642.
24. Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1556-1566, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
25. Wojciech Zaremba and Ilya Sutskever. 2014. Learning to execute. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.4615.