File size: 88,226 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 | {
"paper_id": "P06-1001",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:23:26.225890Z"
},
"title": "Combination of Arabic Preprocessing Schemes for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fatiha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadat",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "fatiha.sadat@cnrc-nrc.gc.ca"
},
{
"first": "Nizar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Habash",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "habash@cs.columbia.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Statistical machine translation is quite robust when it comes to the choice of input representation. It only requires consistency between training and testing. As a result, there is a wide range of possible preprocessing choices for data used in statistical machine translation. This is even more so for morphologically rich languages such as Arabic. In this paper, we study the effect of different word-level preprocessing schemes for Arabic on the quality of phrase-based statistical machine translation. We also present and evaluate different methods for combining preprocessing schemes resulting in improved translation quality.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P06-1001",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Statistical machine translation is quite robust when it comes to the choice of input representation. It only requires consistency between training and testing. As a result, there is a wide range of possible preprocessing choices for data used in statistical machine translation. This is even more so for morphologically rich languages such as Arabic. In this paper, we study the effect of different word-level preprocessing schemes for Arabic on the quality of phrase-based statistical machine translation. We also present and evaluate different methods for combining preprocessing schemes resulting in improved translation quality.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Statistical machine translation (SMT) is quite robust when it comes to the choice of input representation. It only requires consistency between training and testing. As a result, there is a wide range of possible preprocessing choices for data used in SMT. This is even more so for morphologically rich languages such as Arabic. We use the term \"preprocessing\" to describe various input modifications applied to raw training and testing texts for SMT. Preprocessing includes different kinds of tokenization, stemming, part-of-speech (POS) tagging and lemmatization. The ultimate goal of preprocessing is to improve the quality of the SMT output by addressing issues such as sparsity in training data. We refer to a specific kind of preprocessing as a \"scheme\" and differentiate it from the \"technique\" used to obtain it. In a previous publication, we presented results describing six pre-processing schemes for Arabic (Habash and Sadat, 2006) . These schemes were evaluated against three different techniques that vary in linguistic complexity; and across a learning curve of training sizes. Additionally, we reported on the effect of scheme/technique combination on genre variation between training and testing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 918,
"end": 942,
"text": "(Habash and Sadat, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we shift our attention to exploring and contrasting additional preprocessing schemes for Arabic and describing and evaluating different methods for combining them. We use a single technique throughout the experiments reported here. We show an improved MT performance when combining different schemes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Similarly to Habash and Sadat (2006) , the set of schemes we explore are all word-level. As such, we do not utilize any syntactic information. We define the word to be limited to written Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) strings separated by white space, punctuation and numbers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 36,
"text": "Habash and Sadat (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Section 2 presents previous relevant research. Section 3 presents some relevant background on Arabic linguistics to motivate the schemes discussed in Section 4. Section 5 presents the tools and data sets used, along with the results of basic scheme experiments. Section 6 presents combination techniques and their results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The anecdotal intuition in the field is that reduction of word sparsity often improves translation quality. This reduction can be achieved by increasing training data or via morphologically driven preprocessing (Goldwater and McClosky, 2005) . Recent publications on the effect of morphology on SMT quality focused on morphologically rich languages such as German (Nie\u00dfen and Ney, 2004) ; Spanish, Catalan, and Serbian (Popovi\u0107 and Ney, 2004) ; and Czech (Goldwater and Mc-Closky, 2005) . They all studied the effects of various kinds of tokenization, lemmatization and POS tagging and show a positive effect on SMT quality.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 241,
"text": "(Goldwater and McClosky, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 386,
"text": "(Nie\u00dfen and Ney, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 442,
"text": "(Popovi\u0107 and Ney, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 486,
"text": "(Goldwater and Mc-Closky, 2005)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Specifically considering Arabic, Lee (2004) investigated the use of automatic alignment of POS tagged English and affix-stem segmented Arabic to determine appropriate tokenizations. Her results show that morphological preprocessing helps, but only for the smaller corpora. As size increases, the benefits diminish. Our results are comparable to hers in terms of BLEU score and consistent in terms of conclusions. Other research on preprocessing Arabic suggests that minimal preprocessing, such as splitting off the conjunction + w+ 'and', produces best results with very large training data (Och, 2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"text": "Lee (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 591,
"end": 602,
"text": "(Och, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "System combination for MT has also been investigated by different researchers. Approaches to combination generally either select one of the hypotheses produced by the different systems combined (Nomoto, 2004; Paul et al., 2005; Lee, 2005) or combine lattices/n-best lists from the different systems with different degrees of synthesis or mixing (Frederking and Nirenburg, 1994; Bangalore et al., 2001; Jayaraman and Lavie, 2005; Matusov et al., 2006) . These different approaches use various translation and language models in addition to other models such as word matching, sentence and document alignment, system translation confidence, phrase translation lexicons, etc.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 208,
"text": "(Nomoto, 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 227,
"text": "Paul et al., 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 238,
"text": "Lee, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 377,
"text": "(Frederking and Nirenburg, 1994;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 401,
"text": "Bangalore et al., 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 428,
"text": "Jayaraman and Lavie, 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 450,
"text": "Matusov et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We extend on previous work by experimenting with a wider range of preprocessing schemes for Arabic and exploring their combination to produce better results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Arabic is a morphologically complex language with a large set of morphological features 1 . These features are realized using both concatenative morphology (affixes and stems) and templatic morphology (root and patterns). There is a variety of morphological and phonological adjustments that appear in word orthography and interact with orthographic variations. Next we discuss a subset of these issues that are necessary background for the later sections. We do not address 1 Arabic words have fourteen morphological features: POS, person, number, gender, voice, aspect, determiner proclitic, conjunctive proclitic, particle proclitic, pronominal enclitic, nominal case, nunation, idafa (possessed), and mood.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arabic Linguistic Issues",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "derivational morphology (such as using roots as tokens) in this paper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arabic Linguistic Issues",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Orthographic Ambiguity: The form of certain letters in Arabic script allows suboptimal orthographic variants of the same word to coexist in the same text. For example, variants of Hamzated Alif,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 or \u00a5 \u00a7 \u00a6",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "are often written without their Hamza (\u00a8): \u00a9 A . These variant spellings increase the ambiguity of words. The Arabic script employs diacritics for representing short vowels and doubled consonants. These diacritics are almost always absent in running text, which increases word ambiguity. We assume all of the text we are using is undiacritized.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Clitics: Arabic has a set of attachable clitics to be distinguished from inflectional features such as gender, number, person, voice, aspect, etc. These clitics are written attached to the word and thus increase the ambiguity of alternative readings. We can classify three degrees of cliticization that are applicable to a word base in a strict order:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[CONJ+ [PART+ [Al+ BASE +PRON]]]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "At the deepest level, the BASE can have a definite article (+ \u00a9 Al+ 'the') or a member of the class of pronominal enclitics, +PRON, (e.g. + +hm 'their/them'). Pronominal enclitics can attach to nouns (as possessives) or verbs and prepositions (as objects). The definite article doesn't apply to verbs or prepositions. +PRON and Al+ cannot co-exist on nouns. Next comes the class of particle proclitics (PART+): + l+ 'to/for', + b+ 'by/with', + k+ 'as/such' and + s+ 'will/future'. b+ and k+ are only nominal; s+ is only verbal and l+ applies to both nouns and verbs. At the shallowest level of attachment we find the conjunctions (CONJ+) + w+ 'and' and + f+ 'so'. They can attach to everything. \u00a1 Adjustment Rules: Morphological features that are realized concatenatively (as opposed to templatically) are not always simply concatenated to a word base. Additional morphological, phonological and orthographic rules are applied to the word. An example of a morphological rule is the feminine morpheme, +p (ta marbuta), which can only be word final. In medial position, it is turned into t. For example,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "+! # \" % $ ' & \u00a7 ( mktbp+hm ap- pears as 0 ) $ % \" 1 $ ' & \u00a7 (",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "mktbthm 'their library'. An example of an orthographic rule is the deletion of the Alif (\u00a9 ) of the definite article + \u00a1 Templatic Inflections: Some of the inflectional features in Arabic words are realized templatically by applying a different pattern to the Arabic root. As a result, extracting the lexeme (or lemma) of an Arabic word is not always an easy task and often requires the use of a morphological analyzer. One common example in Arabic nouns is Broken Plurals. For example, one of the plural forms of the Arabic word",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a1 \u00a3\u00a4 kAtb 'writer' is ! \" % $ \u00a4 ktbp 'writers'. An alternative non-broken plural (concatenatively derived) is \u00a5 \u00a7 \u00a6\" \u00a1 \u00a3\u00a4 kAtbwn 'writers'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "These phenomena highlight two issues related to the task at hand (preprocessing): First, ambiguity in Arabic words is an important issue to address. To determine whether a clitic or feature should be split off or abstracted off requires that we determine that said feature is indeed present in the word we are considering in context -not just that it is possible given an analyzer. Secondly, once a specific analysis is determined, the process of splitting off or abstracting off a feature must be clear on what the form of the resulting word should be. In principle, we would like to have whatever adjustments now made irrelevant (because of the missing feature) to be removed. This ensures reduced sparsity and reduced unnecessary ambiguity. For example, the word ) 0 $ 1 \" % $ \u00a4 ktbthm has two possible readings (among others) as 'their writers' or 'I wrote them'. Splitting off the pronominal enclitic 0 + +hm without normalizing the t to p in the nominal reading leads the coexistence of two forms of the noun",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "! \" % $ \u00a4 ktbp and \u00a9 \" % $ \u00a4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "ktbt. This increased sparsity is only worsened by the fact that the second form is also the verbal form (thus increased ambiguity).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given Arabic morphological complexity, the number of possible preprocessing schemes is very large since any subset of morphological and orthographic features can be separated, deleted or normalized in various ways. To implement any preprocessing scheme, a preprocessing technique must be able to disambiguate amongst the possible analyses of a word, identify the features addressed by the scheme in the chosen analysis and process them as specified by the scheme. In this section we describe eleven different schemes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arabic Preprocessing Schemes",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We use the Buckwalter Arabic Morphological Analyzer (BAMA) (Buckwalter, 2002) to obtain possible word analyses. To select among these analyses, we use the Morphological Analysis and Disambiguation for Arabic (MADA) tool, 2 an off-theshelf resource for Arabic disambiguation (Habash and Rambow, 2005) . Being a disambiguation system of morphology, not word sense, MADA sometimes produces ties for analyses with the same inflectional features but different lexemes (resolving such ties require word-sense disambiguation). We resolve these ties in a consistent arbitrary manner: first in a sorted list of analyses.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 77,
"text": "(Buckwalter, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 299,
"text": "(Habash and Rambow, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preprocessing Technique",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Producing a preprocessing scheme involves removing features from the word analysis and regenerating the word without the split-off features. The regeneration ensures that the generated form is appropriately normalized by addressing various morphotactics described in Section 3. The generation is completed using the off-the-shelf Arabic morphological generation system Aragen (Habash, 2004) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 376,
"end": 390,
"text": "(Habash, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preprocessing Technique",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "This preprocessing technique we use here is the best performer amongst other explored techniques presented in Habash and Sadat (2006) . Table 1 exemplifies the effect of different schemes on the same sentence. \u00a1 ST: Simple Tokenization is the baseline preprocessing scheme. It is limited to splitting off punctuations and numbers from words. For example the last non-white-space string in the example sentence in Table 1 , \"trkyA.\" is split into two tokens: \"trkyA\" and \".\". An example of splitting numbers from words is the case of the conjunction + w+ 'and' which can prefix numerals such as when a list of numbers is described: 15 w15 'and 15'. This scheme requires no disambiguation. Any diacritics that appear in the input are removed in this scheme. This scheme is used as input to produce the other schemes. \u00a1 ON: Orthographic Normalization addresses the issue of sub-optimal spelling in Arabic. We use the Buckwalter answer undiacritized as the orthographically normalized form. An example of ON is the spelling of the last letter in the first and fifth words in the example in Table 1 (wsynhY and AlY, respectively). Since orthographic normalization is tied to the use of MADA and BAMA, all of the schemes we use here are normalized.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 133,
"text": "Habash and Sadat (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 143,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 420,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 1086,
"end": 1093,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preprocessing Technique",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 D1, D2, and D3: Decliticization (degree 1, 2 and 3) are schemes that split off clitics in the order described in Section 3. D1 splits off the class of conjunction clitics (w+ and f+). D2 is the same as D1 plus splitting off the class of particles (l+, k+, b+ and s+). Finally D3 splits off what D2 does in addition to the definite article Al+ and all pronominal enclitics. A pronominal clitic is represented as its feature representation to preserve its uniqueness. (See the third word in the example in Table 1 .) This allows distinguishing between the possessive pronoun and object pronoun which often look similar. \u00a1 WA: Decliticizing the conjunction w+. This is the simplest tokenization used beyond ON. It is similar to D1, but without including f+. This is included to compare to evidence in its support as best preprocessing scheme for very large data (Och, 2005) . \u00a1 TB: Arabic Treebank Tokenization. This is the same tokenization scheme used in the Arabic Treebank (Maamouri et al., 2004) . This is similar to D3 but without the splitting off of the definite article Al+ or the future particle s+. \u00a1 MR: Morphemes. This scheme breaks up words into stem and affixival morphemes. It is identical to the initial tokenization used by Lee (2004) . \u00a1 L1 and L2: Lexeme and POS. These reduce a word to its lexeme and a POS. L1 and L2 differ in the set of POS tags they use. L1 uses the simple POS tags advocated by Habash and Ram-bow (2005) (15 tags); while L2 uses the reduced tag set used by Diab et al. (2004) (24 tags). The latter is modeled after the English Penn POS tag set. For example, Arabic nouns are differentiated for being singular (NN) or Plural/Dual (NNS), but adjectives are not even though, in Arabic, they inflect exactly the same way nouns do. \u00a1 EN: English-like. This scheme is intended to minimize differences between Arabic and English. It decliticizes similarly to D3, but uses Lexeme and POS tags instead of the regenerated word. The POS tag set used is the reduced Arabic Treebank tag set (24 tags) (Maamouri et al., 2004; Diab et al., 2004) . Additionally, the subject inflection is indicated explicitly as a separate token. We do not use any additional information to remove specific features using alignments or syntax (unlike, e.g. removing all but one Al+ in noun phrases (Lee, 2004) ). Table 2 compares the different schemes in terms of the number of tokens, number of out-ofvocabulary (OOV) tokens, and perplexity. These statistics are computed over the MT04 set, which we use in this paper to report SMT results (Section 5). Perplexity is measured against a language model constructed from the Arabic side of the parallel corpus used in the MT experiments (Section 5).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 861,
"end": 872,
"text": "(Och, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 976,
"end": 999,
"text": "(Maamouri et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 1241,
"end": 1251,
"text": "Lee (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1498,
"end": 1516,
"text": "Diab et al. (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 2029,
"end": 2052,
"text": "(Maamouri et al., 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 2053,
"end": 2071,
"text": "Diab et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 2307,
"end": 2318,
"text": "(Lee, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 506,
"end": 513,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 2322,
"end": 2329,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preprocessing Schemes",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Obviously the more verbose a scheme is, the bigger the number of tokens in the text. The ST, ON, L1, and L2 share the same number of tokens because they all modify the word without splitting off any of its morphemes or features. The increase in the number of tokens is in inverse correlation with the number of OOVs and perplexity. The only exceptions are L1 and L2, whose low OOV rate is the result of the reductionist nature of the scheme, which does not preserve morphological information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparing Various Schemes",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "We now describe the system and the data sets we used to conduct our experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Basic Scheme Experiments",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We use an off-the-shelf phrase-based SMT system, Portage (Sadat et al., 2005) . For training, Portage uses IBM word alignment models (models 1 and 2) trained in both directions to extract phrase tables in a manner resembling (Koehn, 2004a) . Trigram language models are implemented using the SRILM toolkit (Stolcke, 2002) . Decoding weights are optimized using Och's algorithm (Och, 2003) to set weights for the four components of the loglinear model: language model, phrase translation model, distortion model, and word-length feature. The weights are optimized over the BLEU metric (Papineni et al., 2001 ). The Portage decoder, Canoe, is a dynamic-programming beam search algorithm resembling the algorithm described in (Koehn, 2004a) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"text": "(Sadat et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 239,
"text": "(Koehn, 2004a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 321,
"text": "(Stolcke, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 388,
"text": "(Och, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 606,
"text": "(Papineni et al., 2001",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 737,
"text": "(Koehn, 2004a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Portage",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "All of the training data we use is available from the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC). We use an Arabic-English parallel corpus of about 5 million words for translation model training data. 3 We created the English language model from the English side of the parallel corpus together with 116 million words the English Gigaword Corpus (LDC2005T12) and 128 million words from the English side of the UN Parallel corpus (LDC2004E13). 4 English preprocessing simply included lowercasing, separating punctuation from words and splitting off \"'s\". The same preprocessing was used on the English data for all experiments. Only Arabic preprocessing was varied. Decoding weight optimization was done using a set of 200 sentences from the 2003 NIST MT evaluation test set (MT03). We report results on the 2004 NIST MT evaluation test set (MT04) The experiment design and choices of schemes and techniques were done independently of the test set. The data sets, MT03 and MT04, include one Arabic source and four English reference translations. We use the evaluation metric BLEU-4 (Papineni et al., 2001) although we are aware of its caveats (Callison-Burch et al., 2006) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 191,
"end": 192,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 434,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1071,
"end": 1094,
"text": "(Papineni et al., 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1161,
"text": "(Callison-Burch et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental data",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "We conducted experiments with all schemes discussed in Section 4 with different training corpus sizes: 1%, 10%, 50% and 100%. The results of the experiments are summarized in Table 3 . These results are not English case sensitive. All reported scores must have over 1.1% BLEU-4 difference to be significant at the 95% confidence level for 1% training. For all other training sizes, the difference must be over 1.7% BLEU-4. Error intervals were computed using bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004b) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 480,
"end": 494,
"text": "(Koehn, 2004b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 182,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Results",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "Across different schemes, EN performs the best under scarce-resource condition; and D2 performs as best under large resource conditions. The results from the learning curve are consistent with previous published work on using morphological preprocessing for SMT: deeper morph analysis helps for small data sets, but the effect is diminished with more data. One interesting observation is that for our best performing system (D2), the BLEU score at 50% training (35.91) was higher than the baseline ST at 100% training data (34.59). This relationship is not consistent across the rest of the experiments. ON improves over the baseline but only statistically significantly at the 1% level.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Results",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "The results for WA are generally similar to D1. This makes sense since w+ is by far the most common of the two conjunctions D1 splits off. The TB scheme behaves similarly to D2, the best scheme we have. It outperformed D2 in few instances, but the difference were not statistically significant. L1 and L2 behaved similar to EN across the different training size. However, both were always worse than EN. Neither variant was consistently better than the other.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Results",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "The complementary variation in the behavior of different schemes under different resource size conditions motivated us to investigate system combination. The intuition is that even under large resource conditions, some words will occur very infrequently that the only way to model them is to use a technique that behaves well under poor resource conditions. We conducted an oracle study into system combination. An oracle combination output was created by selecting for each input sentence the output with the highest sentence-level BLEU score. We recognize that since the brevity penalty in BLEU is applied globally, this score may not be the highest possible combination score. The oracle combination has a 24% improvement in BLEU score (from 37.1 in best system to 46.0) when combining all eleven schemes described in this paper. This shows that combining of output from all schemes has a large potential of improvement over all of the different systems and that the different schemes are complementary in some way.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "System Combination",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "In the rest of this section we describe two successful methods for system combination of different schemes: rescoring-only combination (ROC) and decoding-plus-rescoring combination (DRC). All of the experiments use the same training data, test data (MT04) and preprocessing schemes described in the previous section.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 140,
"text": "(ROC)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "System Combination",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "This \"shallow\" approach rescores all the one-best outputs generated from separate scheme-specific systems and returns the top choice. Each schemespecific system uses its own scheme-specific preprocessing, phrase-tables, and decoding weights. For rescoring, we use the following features:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rescoring-only Combination",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "The four basic features used by the decoder: trigram language model, phrase translation model, distortion model, and word-length feature.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "IBM model 1 and IBM model 2 probabilities in both directions. We call the union of these two sets of features standard.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The perplexity of the preprocessed source sentence (PPL) against a source language model as described in Section 4.3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The number of out-of-vocabulary words in the preprocessed source sentence (OOV).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Length of the preprocessed source sentence (SL).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An encoding of the specific scheme used (SC). We use a one-hot coding approach with 11 separate binary features, each corresponding to a specific scheme.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Optimization of the weights on the rescoring features is carried out using the same max-BLEU algorithm and the same development corpus described in Section 5.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Results of different sets of features with the ROC approach are presented in Table 4 . Using standard features with all eleven schemes, we obtain a BLEU score of 34.87 -a significant drop from the best scheme system (D2, 37.10). Using different subsets of features or limiting the number of systems to the best four systems (D2, TB, D1 and WA), we get some improvements. The best results are obtained using all schemes with standard features plus perplexity and scheme coding. The improvements are small; however they are statistically significant (see Section 6.3). ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This \"deep\" approach allows the decoder to consult several different phrase tables, each generated using a different preprocessing scheme; just as with ROC, there is a subsequent rescoring stage.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Decoding-plus-Rescoring Combination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "A problem with DRC is that the decoder we use can only cope with one format for the source sentence at a time. Thus, we are forced to designate a particular scheme as privileged when the system is carrying out decoding. The privileged preprocessing scheme will be the one applied to the source sentence. Obviously, words and phrases in the preprocessed source sentence will more frequently match the phrases in the privileged phrase table than in the non-privileged ones. Nevertheless, the decoder may still benefit from having access to all the tables. For each choice of a privileged scheme, optimization of log-linear weights is carried out (with the version of the development set preprocessed in the same privileged scheme). The middle column of Table 5 shows the results for 1-best output from the decoder under different choices of the privileged scheme. The bestperforming system in this column has as its privileged preprocessing scheme TB. The decoder for this system uses TB to preprocess the source sentence, but has access to a log-linear combination of information from all 11 preprocessing schemes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 751,
"end": 758,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Decoding-plus-Rescoring Combination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The final column of Table 5 shows the results of rescoring the concatenation of the 1-best outputs from each of the combined systems. The rescoring features used are the same as those used for the ROC experiments. For rescoring, a privileged preprocessing scheme is chosen and applied to the development corpus. We chose TB for this (since it yielded the best result when chosen to be privileged at the decoding stage). Applied to 11 schemes, this yields the best result so far: 38.67 BLEU. Combining the 4 best pre-processing schemes (D2, TB, D1, WA) yielded a lower BLEU score (37.73). These results show that combining phrase tables from different schemes have a positive effect on MT performance. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 27,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Decoding-plus-Rescoring Combination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "We use bootstrap resampling to compute MT statistical significance as described in (Koehn, 2004a) . The results are presented in Table 6 . Comparing the 11 individual systems and the two combinations DRC and ROC shows that DRC is significantly better than the other systems -DRC got a max BLEU score in 100% of samples. When excluding DRC from the comparison set, ROC got max BLEU score in 97.7% of samples, while D2 and TB got max BLEU score in 2.2% and 0.1% of samples, respectively. The difference between ROC and D2 and ATB is statistically significant.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 97,
"text": "(Koehn, 2004a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 136,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Significance Test",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "We motivated, described and evaluated several preprocessing schemes for Arabic. The choice of a preprocessing scheme is related to the size of available training data. We also presented two techniques for scheme combination. Although the results we got are not as high as the oracle scores, they are statistically significant.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "In the future, we plan to study additional scheme variants that our current results support as potentially helpful. We plan to include more syntactic knowledge. We also plan to continue investigating combination techniques at the sentence and sub-sentence levels. We are especially interested in the relationship between alignment and decoding and the effect of preprocessing scheme on both.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The version of MADA used in this paper was trained on the Penn Arabic Treebank (PATB) part 1(Maamouri et al., 2004).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The parallel text includes Arabic News (LDC2004T17), eTIRR (LDC2004E72), English translation of Arabic Treebank (LDC2005E46), and Ummah (LDC2004T18).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The SRILM toolkit has a limit on the size of the training corpus. We selected portions of additional corpora using a heuristic that picks documents containing the word \"Arab\" only. The Language model created using this heuristic had a bigger improvement in BLEU score (more than 1% BLEU-4) than a randomly selected portion of equal size.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This paper is based upon work supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contract No. HR0011-06-C-0023. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA. We thank Roland Kuhn and George Forster for helpful discussions and support.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Computing Consensus Translation from Multiple Machine Translation Systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bangalore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bordel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riccardi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. of IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Bangalore, G. Bordel, and G. Riccardi. 2001. Com- puting Consensus Translation from Multiple Ma- chine Translation Systems. In Proc. of IEEE Auto- matic Speech Recognition and Understanding Work- shop, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Buckwalter Arabic Morphological Analyzer Version 1.0. Linguistic Data Consortium",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Buckwalter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2002--2051",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Buckwalter. 2002. Buckwalter Arabic Mor- phological Analyzer Version 1.0. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. Catalog: LDC2002L49.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Re-evaluating the Role of Bleu in Machine Translation Research",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Callison-Burch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Osborne",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proc. of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Callison-Burch, M. Osborne, and P. Koehn. 2006. Re-evaluating the Role of Bleu in Machine Trans- lation Research. In Proc. of the European Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Trento, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Automatic Tagging of Arabic Text: From Raw Text to Base Phrase Chunks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Diab",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hacioglu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Diab, K. Hacioglu, and D. Jurafsky. 2004. Au- tomatic Tagging of Arabic Text: From Raw Text to Base Phrase Chunks. In Proc. of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Boston, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Three Heads are Better Than One",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frederking",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nirenburg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of Applied Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Frederking and S. Nirenburg. 2005. Three Heads are Better Than One. In Proc. of Applied Natural Language Processing, Stuttgart, Germany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Improving Statistical MT through Morphological Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goldwater",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcclosky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Goldwater and D. McClosky. 2005. Improving Statistical MT through Morphological Analysis. In Proc. of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Vancouver, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Tokenization, Morphological Analysis, and Part-of-Speech Tagging for Arabic in One Fell Swoop",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Habash",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "O",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rambow",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Habash and O. Rambow. 2005. Tokenization, Mor- phological Analysis, and Part-of-Speech Tagging for Arabic in One Fell Swoop. In Proc. of Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Ann Ar- bor, Michigan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Arabic Preprocessing Schemes for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Habash",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proc. of NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Habash and F. Sadat. 2006. Arabic Preprocess- ing Schemes for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proc. of NAACL, Brooklyn, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Large Scale Lexeme-based Arabic Morphological Generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Habash",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN). Fez, Morocco",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Habash. 2004. Large Scale Lexeme-based Arabic Morphological Generation. In Proc. of Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN). Fez, Mo- rocco.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Multi-Engine Machine Translation Guided by Explicit Word Matching",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jayaraman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lavie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Jayaraman and A. Lavie. 2005. Multi-Engine Ma- chine Translation Guided by Explicit Word Match- ing. In Proc. of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL), Ann Arbor, MI.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Pharaoh: a Beam Search Decoder for Phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Koehn. 2004a. Pharaoh: a Beam Search Decoder for Phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation Mod- els. In Proc. of the Association for Machine Trans- lation in the Americas (AMTA).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of the EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Koehn. 2004b. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proc. of the EMNLP, Barcelona, Spain.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Morphological Analysis for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Y. Lee. 2004. Morphological Analysis for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proc. of NAACL, Boston, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "IBM Statistical Machine Translation for Spoken Languages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Y. Lee. 2005. IBM Statistical Machine Translation for Spoken Languages. In Proc. of International Work- shop on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "The Penn Arabic Treebank: Building a Large-scale Annotated Arabic Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maamouri",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bies",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Buckwalter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of NEMLAR Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Maamouri, A. Bies, and T. Buckwalter. 2004. The Penn Arabic Treebank: Building a Large-scale An- notated Arabic Corpus. In Proc. of NEMLAR Con- ference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Computing Consensus Translation from Multiple Machine Translation Systems Using Enhanced Hypotheses Alignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matusov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ueffing",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proc. of EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Matusov, N. Ueffing, H. Ney 2006. Comput- ing Consensus Translation from Multiple Machine Translation Systems Using Enhanced Hypotheses Alignment. In Proc. of EACL, Trento, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Statistical Machine Translation with Scarce Resources Using Morphosyntactic Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nie\u00dfen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Nie\u00dfen and H. Ney. 2004. Statistical Machine Translation with Scarce Resources Using Morpho- syntactic Information. Computational Linguistics, 30(2).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Multi-Engine Machine Translation with Voted Language Model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nomoto",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Nomoto. 2004. Multi-Engine Machine Transla- tion with Voted Language Model. In Proc. of ACL, Barcelona, Spain.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Minimum Error Rate Training in Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Och",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proc. of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Och. 2003. Minimum Error Rate Training in Sta- tistical Machine Translation. In Proc. of the ACL, Sapporo, Japan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Google System Description for the",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Och",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Och. 2005. Google System Description for the 2005",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "MT Eval Workshop (unpublished talk)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Nist",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Evaluation",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nist MT Evaluation. In MT Eval Workshop (unpub- lished talk).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Papineni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roukos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ward",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "IBM Research Division",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W. Zhu. 2001. Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evalua- tion of Machine Translation. Technical Report RC22176(W0109-022), IBM Research Division, Yorktown Heights, NY.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Nobody is Perfect: ATR's Hybrid Approach to Spoken Language Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paul",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Doi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hwang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Imamura",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Okuma",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sumita",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of IWSLT",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Paul, T. Doi, Y. Hwang, K. Imamura, H. Okuma, and E. Sumita. 2005. Nobody is Perfect: ATR's Hybrid Approach to Spoken Language Translation. In Proc. of IWSLT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Towards the Use of Word Stems and Suffixes for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Popovi\u0107",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Popovi\u0107 and H. Ney. 2004. Towards the Use of Word Stems and Suffixes for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proc. of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Lisbon, Portugal.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Portage: A Phrasebased Machine Translation System",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Agbago",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Foster",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tikuisis",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Building and Using Parallel Texts",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sadat, H. Johnson, A. Agbago, G. Foster, R. Kuhn, J. Martin, and A. Tikuisis. 2005. Portage: A Phrase- based Machine Translation System. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Building and Using Parallel Texts, Ann Arbor, Michigan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Srilm -An Extensible Language Modeling Toolkit",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stolcke",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proc. of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Stolcke. 2002. Srilm -An Extensible Language Modeling Toolkit. In Proc. of International Confer- ence on Spoken Language Processing.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"TABREF0": {
"html": null,
"text": "Various Preprocessing Schemes English The president will finish his tour with a visit to Turkey.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Input</td><td>wsynhY</td><td>Alr ys</td><td>jwlth</td><td>bzyArp</td><td>AlY</td><td>trkyA.</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Gloss</td><td>and will finish</td><td colspan=\"2\">the president tour his</td><td>with visit</td><td>to</td><td>Turkey</td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td>Scheme</td><td/><td/><td>Baseline</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>wsynhY</td><td>Alr ys</td><td>jwlth</td><td>bzyArp</td><td>AlY</td><td>trkyA</td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td>ON D1 D2 D3 WA TB MR L1</td><td colspan=\"2\">wsynhy w+ synhy w+ s+ ynhy w+ s+ ynhy w+ synhy w+ synhy w+ s+ y+ nhy \u00a7 nhY\u00a8r ys\u00a9 Alr ys Alr ys Alr ys Al+ r ys Alr ys Alr ys Al+ r ys</td><td>jwlth jwlth jwlth jwlp +P\u00a2 jwlth jwlp +P\u00a2 jwl +p +h \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 jwlp\u00a9</td><td>bzyArp bzyArp b+ zyArp b+ zyArp bzyArp b+ zyArp b+ zyAr +p zyArp\u00a9</td><td>lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1 lY \u00a1</td><td>trkyA trkyA trkyA trkyA trkyA trkyA trkyA</td><td>. . . . . . .</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"text": "Scheme Statistics",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Scheme</td><td colspan=\"3\">Tokens OOVs Perplexity</td></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>36000</td><td>1345</td><td>1164</td></tr><tr><td>ON</td><td>36000</td><td>1212</td><td>944</td></tr><tr><td>D1</td><td>38817</td><td>1016</td><td>582</td></tr><tr><td>D2</td><td>40934</td><td>835</td><td>422</td></tr><tr><td>D3</td><td>52085</td><td>575</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td>38635</td><td>1044</td><td>596</td></tr><tr><td>TB</td><td>42880</td><td>662</td><td>338</td></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td>62410</td><td>409</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>L1</td><td>36000</td><td>392</td><td>401</td></tr><tr><td>L2</td><td>36000</td><td>432</td><td>460</td></tr><tr><td>EN</td><td>55525</td><td>432</td><td>103</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"text": "",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Training Data</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Scheme 1%</td><td>10%</td><td>50%</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>ST</td><td>9.42</td><td colspan=\"3\">22.92 31.09 34.59</td></tr><tr><td>ON</td><td colspan=\"2\">10.71 24.3</td><td colspan=\"2\">32.52 35.91</td></tr><tr><td>D1</td><td colspan=\"4\">13.11 26.88 33.38 36.06</td></tr><tr><td>D2</td><td colspan=\"4\">14.19 27.72 35.91 37.10</td></tr><tr><td>D3</td><td colspan=\"4\">16.51 28.69 34.04 34.33</td></tr><tr><td>WA</td><td colspan=\"4\">13.12 26.29 34.24 35.97</td></tr><tr><td>TB</td><td colspan=\"4\">14.13 28.71 35.83 36.76</td></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td colspan=\"4\">11.61 27.49 32.99 34.43</td></tr><tr><td>L1</td><td colspan=\"4\">14.63 24.72 31.04 32.23</td></tr><tr><td>L2</td><td colspan=\"4\">14.87 26.72 31.28 33.00</td></tr><tr><td>EN</td><td colspan=\"4\">17.45 28.41 33.28 34.51</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"text": "ROC Approach Results",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Combination</td><td colspan=\"2\">All Schemes 4 Best Schemes</td></tr><tr><td>standard</td><td>34.87</td><td>37.12</td></tr><tr><td>+PPL+SC</td><td>37.58</td><td>37.45</td></tr><tr><td>+PPL+SC+OOV</td><td>37.40</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">+PPL+SC+OOV+SL 37.39</td><td/></tr><tr><td>+PPL+SC+SL</td><td>37.15</td><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF4": {
"html": null,
"text": "DRC Approach Results",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Combination</td><td>Decoding</td><td/><td>Rescoring</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Scheme 1-best Standard+PPL</td></tr><tr><td/><td>D2</td><td>37.16</td><td/></tr><tr><td>All schemes</td><td>TB</td><td>38.24</td><td>38.67</td></tr><tr><td/><td>D1</td><td>37.89</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>WA</td><td>36.91</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>ON</td><td>36.42</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>ST</td><td>34.27</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>EN</td><td>30.78</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>MR</td><td>34.65</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>D3</td><td>34.73</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>L2</td><td>32.25</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>L1</td><td>30.47</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>D2</td><td>37.39</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">4 best schemes TB</td><td>37.53</td><td>37.73</td></tr><tr><td/><td>D1</td><td>36.05</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>WA</td><td>37.53</td><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"text": "Statistical Significance using Bootstrap Resampling",
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">DRC ROC D2</td><td>TB</td><td>D1</td><td>WA</td><td>ON</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td/><td>97.7</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">92.1 7.9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">98.8 0.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">53.8 24.1 22.1</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">59.3 40.7</td></tr></table>"
}
}
}
} |