Segment-based interactive-predictive machine translation

[EN] Machine translation systems require human revision to obtain high-quality translations. Interactive methods provide an efficient human¿computer collaboration, notably increasing productivity. Recently, new interactive protocols have been proposed, seeking for a more effective user interaction with the system. In this work, we present one of these new protocols, which allows the user to validate all correct word sequences in a translation hypothesis. Thus, the left-to-right barrier from most of the existing protocols is broken. We compare this protocol against the classical prefix-based approach, obtaining a significant reduction of the user effort in a simulated environment. Additionally, we experiment with the use of confidence measures to select the word the user should correct at each iteration, reaching the conclusion that the order in which words are corrected does not affect the overall effort.The research leading to these results has received funding from the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO) under Project CoMUN-HaT (Grant Agreement TIN2015-70924-C2-1-R), and Generalitat Valenciana under Project ALMAMATER (Ggrant Agreement PROMETEOII/2014/030).Domingo-Ballester, M.; Peris-Abril, Á.; Casacuberta Nolla, F. (2017). Segment-based interactive-predictive machine translation. Machine Translation. 31(4):163-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-017-9213-3S163185314Alabau V, Bonk R, Buck C, Carl M, Casacuberta F, García-Martínez M, González-Rubio J, Koehn P, Leiva LA, Mesa-Lao B, Ortiz-Martínez D, Saint-Amand H, Sanchis-Trilles G, Tsoukala C (2013) CASMACAT: an open source workbench for advanced computer aided translation. Prague Bull Math Linguist 100:101–112Alabau V, Rodríguez-Ruiz L, Sanchis A, Martínez-Gómez P, Casacuberta F (2011) On multimodal interactive machine translation using speech recognition. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp 129–136Alabau V, Sanchis A, Casacuberta F (2014) Improving on-line handwritten recognition in interactive machine translation. Pattern Recognit 47(3):1217–1228Apostolico A, Guerra C (1987) The longest common subsequence problem revisited. Algorithmica 2:315–336Azadi F, Khadivi S (2015) Improved search strategy for interactive machine translation in computer assisted translation. In: Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XV, pp 319–332Bahdanau D, Cho K, Bengio Y (2015) Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations. arXiv:1409.0473Barrachina S, Bender O, Casacuberta F, Civera J, Cubel E, Khadivi S, Lagarda A, Ney H, Tomás J, Vidal E, Vilar J-M (2009) Statistical approaches to computer-assisted translation. Comput Linguist 35:3–28Brown PF, Pietra VJD, Pietra SAD, Mercer RL (1993) The mathematics of statistical machine translation: parameter estimation. Comput Linguist 19(2):263–311Chen SF, Goodman J (1996) An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 310–318Cheng S, Huang S, Chen H, Dai X, Chen J (2016) PRIMT: a pick-revise framework for interactive machine translation. In: Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1240–1249Dale R (2016) How to make money in the translation business. Nat Lang Eng 22(2):321–325Domingo M, Peris, Á, Casacuberta F (2016) Interactive-predictive translation based on multiple word-segments. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pp 282–291Federico M, Bentivogli L, Paul M, Stüker S (2011) Overview of the IWSLT 2011 evaluation campaign. In: International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, pp 11–27Foster G, Isabelle P, Plamondon P (1997) Target-text mediated interactive machine translation. Mach Transl 12:175–194González-Rubio J, Benedí J-M, Casacuberta F (2016) Beyond prefix-based interactive translation prediction. In: Proceedings of the SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pp 198–207González-Rubio J, Ortiz-Martínez D, Casacuberta F (2010) On the use of confidence measures within an interactive-predictive machine translation system. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine TranslationKnowles R, Koehn P (2016) Neural interactive translation prediction. In: Proceedings of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pp 107–120Koehn P (2005) Europarl: a parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the Machine Translation Summit, pp 79–86Koehn P (2010) Statistical machine translation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeKoehn P, Hoang H, Birch A, Callison-Burch C, Federico M, Bertoldi N, Cowan B, Shen W, Moran C, Zens R, Dyer C, Bojar O, Constantin A, Herbst E (2007) Moses: open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 177–180Koehn P, Och FJ, Marcu D (2003) Statistical phrase-based translation. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, pp 48–54Koehn P, Tsoukala C, Saint-Amand H (2014) Refinements to interactive translation prediction based on search graphs. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 574–578Marie B, Max A (2015) Touch-based pre-post-editing of machine translation output. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 1040–1045Nepveu L, Lapalme G, Langlais P, Foster G (2004) Adaptive language and translation models for interactive machine translation. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical method in natural language processing, pp 190–197Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, BurlingtonOch F J (2003) Minimum error rate training in statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp 160–167Och FJ, Ney H (2002) Discriminative training and maximum entropy models for statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp 295–302Och FJ, Ney H (2003) A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Comput Linguist 29(1):19–51Ortiz-Martínez D (2016) Online learning for statistical machine translation. Comput Linguist 42(1):121–161Papineni K, Roukos S, Ward T, Zhu W-J (2002) BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp 311–318Peris Á, Domingo M, Casacuberta F (2017) Interactive neural machine translation. Comput Speech Lang. 45:201–220Sanchis-Trilles G, Ortiz-Martínez D, Civera J, Casacuberta F, Vidal E, Hoang H (2008) Improving interactive machine translation via mouse actions. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 485–494Snover M, Dorr B, Schwartz R, Micciulla L, Makhoul J (2006) A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In: Proceedings of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pp 223–231Stolcke A (2002) SRILM—an extensible language modeling toolkit. In: Proceedings of the international conference on spoken language processing, pp 257–286Sutskever I, Vinyals O, Le QV (2014) Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. NIPS 27:3104–3112Tiedemann J (2009) News from OPUS—a collection of multilingual parallel corpora with tools and interfaces. Recent Adv Nat Lang Process 5:237–248Tomás J, Casacuberta F(2006) Statistical phrase-based models for interactive computer-assisted translation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational linguistics/Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 835–841Torregrosa D, Forcada ML, Pérez-Ortiz JA (2014) An open-source web-based tool for resource-agnostic interactive translation prediction. Prague Bull Math Linguist 102:69–80Tseng H, Chang P, Andrew G, Jurafsky D, Manning C (2005) A conditional random field word segmenter. In: Proceedings of the special interest group of the association for computational linguistics workshop on Chinese language processing, pp 168–171Ueffing N, Ney H (2005) Application of word-level confidence measures in interactive statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the European Association for Machine Translation, pp 262–270Vogel S, Ney H, Tillmann C (1996) HMM-based word alignment in statistical translation. Proc Conf Comput Linguist 2:836–841Wuebker J, Green S, DeNero J, Hasan S, Luong M-T(2016) Models and inference for prefix-constrained machine translation. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for the computational linguistics, pp 66–75Zens R, Och FJ, Ney H (2002) Phrase-based statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the annual German conference on advances in artificial intelligence 2479:18–3

Do Neural Nets Learn Statistical Laws behind Natural Language?

The performance of deep learning in natural language processing has been spectacular, but the reasons for this success remain unclear because of the inherent complexity of deep learning. This paper provides empirical evidence of its effectiveness and of a limitation of neural networks for language engineering. Precisely, we demonstrate that a neural language model based on long short-term memory (LSTM) effectively reproduces Zipf's law and Heaps' law, two representative statistical properties underlying natural language. We discuss the quality of reproducibility and the emergence of Zipf's law and Heaps' law as training progresses. We also point out that the neural language model has a limitation in reproducing long-range correlation, another statistical property of natural language. This understanding could provide a direction for improving the architectures of neural networks.Comment: 21 pages, 11 figure

A syntactified direct translation model with linear-time decoding

Recent syntactic extensions of statistical translation models work with a synchronous context-free or tree-substitution grammar extracted from an automatically parsed parallel corpus. The decoders accompanying these extensions typically exceed quadratic time complexity. This paper extends the Direct Translation Model 2 (DTM2) with syntax while maintaining linear-time decoding. We employ a linear-time parsing algorithm based on an eager, incremental interpretation of Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG). As every input word is processed, the local parsing decisions resolve ambiguity eagerly, by selecting a single supertag–operator pair for extending the dependency parse incrementally. Alongside translation features extracted from the derived parse tree, we explore syntactic features extracted from the incremental derivation process. Our empirical experiments show that our model significantly outperforms the state-of-the art DTM2 system

Comparing Fifty Natural Languages and Twelve Genetic Languages Using Word Embedding Language Divergence (WELD) as a Quantitative Measure of Language Distance

We introduce a new measure of distance between languages based on word embedding, called word embedding language divergence (WELD). WELD is defined as divergence between unified similarity distribution of words between languages. Using such a measure, we perform language comparison for fifty natural languages and twelve genetic languages. Our natural language dataset is a collection of sentence-aligned parallel corpora from bible translations for fifty languages spanning a variety of language families. Although we use parallel corpora, which guarantees having the same content in all languages, interestingly in many cases languages within the same family cluster together. In addition to natural languages, we perform language comparison for the coding regions in the genomes of 12 different organisms (4 plants, 6 animals, and two human subjects). Our result confirms a significant high-level difference in the genetic language model of humans/animals versus plants. The proposed method is a step toward defining a quantitative measure of similarity between languages, with applications in languages classification, genre identification, dialect identification, and evaluation of translations