acl acl2011 acl2011-268 acl2011-268-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Ashish Vaswani ; Haitao Mi ; Liang Huang ; David Chiang
Abstract: Most statistical machine translation systems rely on composed rules (rules that can be formed out of smaller rules in the grammar). Though this practice improves translation by weakening independence assumptions in the translation model, it nevertheless results in huge, redundant grammars, making both training and decoding inefficient. Here, we take the opposite approach, where we only use minimal rules (those that cannot be formed out of other rules), and instead rely on a rule Markov model of the derivation history to capture dependencies between minimal rules. Large-scale experiments on a state-of-the-art tree-to-string translation system show that our approach leads to a slimmer model, a faster decoder, yet the same translation quality (measured using B ) as composed rules.
Gill Bejerano and Golan Yona. 1999. Modeling protein families using probabilistic suffix trees. In Proc. RECOMB, pages 15–24. ACM Press. Rens Bod. 2003. An efficient implementation of a new DOP model. In Proceedings of EACL, pages 19–26. Yuan Ding and Martha Palmer. 2005. Machine translation using probablisitic synchronous dependency insertion grammars. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 541– 548. Victoria Fossum, Kevin Knight, and Steve Abney. 2008. Using syntax to improve word alignment precision for syntax-based machine translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Michel Galley, Mark Hopkins, Kevin Knight, and Daniel Marcu. 2004. What’s in a translation rule? In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL, pages 273–280. Michel Galley, Jonathan Graehl, Kevin Knight, Daniel Marcu, Steve DeNeefe, Wei Wang, and Ignacio Thayer. 2006. Scalable inference and training of context-rich syntactic translation models. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, pages 961–968. Liang Huang and Haitao Mi. 2010. Efficient incremental decoding for tree-to-string translation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 273–283. 864 Liang Huang, Kevin Knight, and Aravind Joshi. 2006. Statistical syntax-directed translation with extended domain of locality. In Proceedings of AMTA, pages 66–73. Mark Johnson. 1998. PCFG models of linguistic tree representations. Computational Linguistics, 24:613– 632. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 388–395. Ding Liu and Daniel Gildea. 2008. Improved tree-tostring transducer for machine translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Statistical Machine Transla- tion, pages 62–69. Yang Liu, Qun Liu, and Shouxun Lin. 2006. Tree-tostring alignment template for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, pages 609– 616. Haitao Mi, Liang Huang, and Qun Liu. 2008. Forestbased translation. In Proceedings of ACL: HLT, pages 192–199. H. Ney, U. Essen, and R. Kneser. 1994. On structuring probabilistic dependencies in stochastic language modelling. Computer Speech and Language, 8: 1–38. Franz Joseph Och. 2003. Minimum error rate training in statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 160–167. Slav Petrov and Dan Klein. 2007. Improved inference for unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of HLTNAACL, pages 404–41 1. Chris Quirk and Arul Menezes. 2006. Do we need phrases? Challenging the conventional wisdom in statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of NAACL HLT, pages 9–16. Stuart Shieber, Yves Schabes, and Fernando Pereira. 1995. Principles and implementation of deductive parsing. Journal of Logic Programming, 24:3–36. Andreas Stolcke. 2002. SRILM an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proceedings ofICSLP, volume 30, pages 901–904. –