File size: 97,028 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 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 | {
"paper_id": "P09-1048",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:53:23.839515Z"
},
"title": "Who, What, When, Where, Why? Comparing Multiple Approaches to the Cross-Lingual 5W Task",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kristen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Parton",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "kristen@cs.columbia.edu"
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Coyne",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "coyne@cs.columbia.edu"
},
{
"first": "Mona",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Diab",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "mdiab@cs.columbia.edu"
},
{
"first": "Ralph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grishman",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "grishman@cs.nyu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Dilek",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hakkani-T\u00fcr",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harper",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "mharper@umd.edu"
},
{
"first": "Ji",
"middle": [
"\u2022"
],
"last": "Heng",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "hengji@cs.qc.cuny.edu"
},
{
"first": "Wei",
"middle": [
"Yun"
],
"last": "Ma",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "ma@cs.columbia.edu"
},
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Meyers",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "meyers@cs.nyu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Sara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stolbach",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Columbia University New York",
"location": {
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Ang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "asun@cs.nyu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Gokhan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tur\u02da",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "gokhan@speech.sri.com"
},
{
"first": "Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "xuwei@cs.nyu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Sibel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yaman",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Cross-lingual tasks are especially difficult due to the compounding effect of errors in language processing and errors in machine translation (MT). In this paper, we present an error analysis of a new cross-lingual task: the 5W task, a sentence-level understanding task which seeks to return the English 5W's (Who, What, When, Where and Why) corresponding to a Chinese sentence. We analyze systems that we developed, identifying specific problems in language processing and MT that cause errors. The best cross-lingual 5W system was still 19% worse than the best monolingual 5W system, which shows that MT significantly degrades sentence-level understanding. Neither source-language nor targetlanguage analysis was able to circumvent problems in MT, although each approach had advantages relative to the other. A detailed error analysis across multiple systems suggests directions for future research on the problem.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P09-1048",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Cross-lingual tasks are especially difficult due to the compounding effect of errors in language processing and errors in machine translation (MT). In this paper, we present an error analysis of a new cross-lingual task: the 5W task, a sentence-level understanding task which seeks to return the English 5W's (Who, What, When, Where and Why) corresponding to a Chinese sentence. We analyze systems that we developed, identifying specific problems in language processing and MT that cause errors. The best cross-lingual 5W system was still 19% worse than the best monolingual 5W system, which shows that MT significantly degrades sentence-level understanding. Neither source-language nor targetlanguage analysis was able to circumvent problems in MT, although each approach had advantages relative to the other. A detailed error analysis across multiple systems suggests directions for future research on the problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In our increasingly global world, it is ever more likely for a mono-lingual speaker to require information that is only available in a foreign language document. Cross-lingual applications address this need by presenting information in the speaker's language even when it originally appeared in some other language, using machine translation (MT) in the process. In this paper, we present an evaluation and error analysis of a cross-lingual application that we developed for a government-sponsored evaluation, the 5W task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The 5W task seeks to summarize the information in a natural language sentence by distilling it into the answers to the 5W questions: Who, What, When, Where and Why. To solve this problem, a number of different problems in NLP must be addressed: predicate identification, argument extraction, attachment disambiguation, location and time expression recognition, and (partial) semantic role labeling. In this paper, we address the cross-lingual 5W task: given a source-language sentence, return the 5W's translated (comprehensibly) into the target language. Success in this task requires a synergy of successful MT and answer selection.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The questions we address in this paper are:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 How much does machine translation (MT) degrade the performance of cross-lingual 5W systems, as compared to monolingual performance? \u2022 Is it better to do source-language analysis and then translate, or do target-language analysis on MT? \u2022 Which specific problems in language processing and/or MT cause errors in 5W answers? In this evaluation, we compare several different approaches to the cross-lingual 5W task, two that work on the target language (English) and one that works in the source language (Chinese).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "A central question for many cross-lingual applications is whether to process in the source language and then translate the result, or translate documents first and then process the translation. Depending on how errorful the translation is, results may be more accurate if models are developed for the source language. However, if there are more resources in the target language, then the translate-then-process approach may be more appropriate. We present a detailed analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of how the approaches differ in performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We also compare system performance on human translation (which we term reference translations) and MT of the same data in order to determine how much MT degrades system performance. Finally, we do an in-depth analysis of the errors in our 5W approaches, both on the NLP side and the MT side. Our results provide explanations for why different approaches succeed, along with indications of where future effort should be spent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The cross-lingual 5W task is closely related to cross-lingual information retrieval and crosslingual question answering (Wang and Oard 2006; Mitamura et al. 2008) . In these tasks, a system is presented a query or question in the target language and asked to return documents or answers from a corpus in the source language. Although MT may be used in solving this task, it is only used by the algorithms -the final evaluation is done in the source language. However, in many real-life situations, such as global business, international tourism, or intelligence work, users may not be able to read the source language. In these cases, users must rely on MT to understand the system response. (Parton et al. 2008) examine the case of \"translingual\" information retrieval, where evaluation is done on translated results in the target language. In cross-lingual information extraction (Sudo et al. 2004) the evaluation is also done on MT, but the goal is to learn knowledge from a large corpus, rather than analyzing individual sentences.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 140,
"text": "(Wang and Oard 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 162,
"text": "Mitamura et al. 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 712,
"text": "(Parton et al. 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 900,
"text": "(Sudo et al. 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The 5W task is also closely related to Semantic Role Labeling (SRL), which aims to efficiently and effectively derive semantic information from text. SRL identifies predicates and their arguments in a sentence, and assigns roles to each argument. For example, in the sentence \"I baked a cake yesterday.\", the predicate \"baked\" has three arguments. \"I\" is the subject of the predicate, \"a cake\" is the object and \"yesterday\" is a temporal argument.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Since the release of large data resources annotated with relevant levels of semantic information, such as the FrameNet (Baker et al., 1998) and PropBank corpora (Kingsbury and Palmer, 2003) , efficient approaches to SRL have been developed (Carreras and Marquez, 2005) . Most approaches to the problem of SRL follow the Gildea and Jurafsky (2002) model. First, for a given predicate, the SRL system identifies its arguments' boundaries. Second, the Argument types are classified depending on an adopted lexical resource such as PropBank or FrameNet. Both steps are based on supervised learning over labeled gold standard data. A final step uses heuristics to resolve inconsistencies when applying both steps simultaneously to the test data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 139,
"text": "(Baker et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 189,
"text": "(Kingsbury and Palmer, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 268,
"text": "(Carreras and Marquez, 2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 346,
"text": "Gildea and Jurafsky (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Since many of the SRL resources are English, most of the SRL systems to date have been for English. There has been work in other languages such as German and Chinese (Erk 2006; Sun 2004; Xue and Palmer 2005) . The systems for the other languages follow the successful models devised for English, e.g. (Gildea and Palmer, 2002; Chen and Rambow, 2003; Moschitti, 2004; Xue and Palmer, 2004; Haghighi et al., 2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 176,
"text": "(Erk 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 186,
"text": "Sun 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 207,
"text": "Xue and Palmer 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 326,
"text": "(Gildea and Palmer, 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 349,
"text": "Chen and Rambow, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 366,
"text": "Moschitti, 2004;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 388,
"text": "Xue and Palmer, 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 411,
"text": "Haghighi et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We participated in the 5W task as part of the DARPA GALE (Global Autonomous Language Exploitation) project. The goal is to identify the 5W's (Who, What, When, Where and Why) for a complete sentence. The motivation for the 5W task is that, as their origin in journalism suggests, the 5W's cover the key information nuggets in a sentence. If a system can isolate these pieces of information successfully, then it can produce a pr\u00e9cis of the basic meaning of the sentence. Note that this task differs from QA tasks, where \"Who\" and \"What\" usually refer to definition type questions. In this task, the 5W's refer to semantic roles within a sentence, as defined in Table 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Task Description",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In order to get all 5W's for a sentence correct, a system must identify a top-level predicate, extract the correct arguments, and resolve attachment ambiguity. In the case of multiple top-level predicates, any of the top-level predicates may be chosen. In the case of passive verbs, the Who is the agent (often expressed as a \"by clause\", or not stated), and the What should include the syntactic subject.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Task Description",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Answers are judged Correct 1 if they identify a correct null argument or correctly extract an argument that is present in the sentence. Answers are not penalized for including extra text, such as prepositional phrases or subordinate clauses, unless the extra text includes text from another answer or text from another top-level predicate. In sentence 2a in Table 2 , returning \"bought and cooked\" for the What would be Incorrect. Similarly, returning \"bought the fish at the market\" for the What would also be Incorrect, since it contains the Where. Answers may also be judged Partial, meaning that only part of the answer was returned. For example, if the What contains the predicate but not the logical object, it is Partial.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 358,
"end": 365,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Task Description",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Since each sentence may have multiple correct sets of 5W's, it is not straightforward to produce a gold-standard corpus for automatic evaluation. One would have to specify answers for each possible top-level predicate, as well as which parts of the sentence are optional and which are not allowed. This also makes creating training data for system development problematic. For example, in Table 2 , the sentence in 2a and 2b is the same, but there are two possible sets of correct answers. Since we could not rely on a goldstandard corpus, we used manual annotation to judge our 5W system, described in section 5.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 389,
"end": 396,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Task Description",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In the cross-lingual 5W task, a system is given a sentence in the source language and asked to produce the 5W's in the target language. In this task, both machine translation (MT) and 5W extraction must succeed in order to produce correct answers. One motivation behind the cross-lingual 5W task is MT evaluation. Unlike word-or phrase-overlap measures such as BLEU, the 5W evaluation takes into account \"concept\" or \"nugget\" translation. Of course, only the top-level predicate and arguments are evaluated, so it is not a complete evaluation. But it seeks to get at the understandability of the MT output, rather than just n-gram overlap.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Cross-Lingual 5W Task",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Translation exacerbates the problem of automatically evaluating 5W systems. Since translation introduces paraphrase, rewording and sentence restructuring, the 5W's may change from one translation of a sentence to another translation of the same sentence. In some cases, roles may swap. For example, in Table 2 , sentences 1a and 1b could be valid translations of the same Chinese sentence. They contain the same information, but the 5W answers are different. Also, translations may produce answers that are textually similar to correct answers, but actually differ in meaning. These differences complicate processing in the source followed by translation. to discuss the economic crisis Table 1 . Definition of the 5W task, and 5W answers from the example sentence above.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 302,
"end": 309,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 694,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Cross-Lingual 5W Task",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We developed a 5W combination system that was based on five other 5W systems. We selected four of these different systems for evaluation: the final combined system (which was our submission for the official evaluation), two systems that did analysis in the target-language (English), and one system that did analysis in the source language (Chinese). In this section, we describe the individual systems that we evaluated, the combination strategy, the parsers that we tuned for the task, and the MT systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W System",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "1a Mary bought a cake from Peter. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentence WHO WHAT",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For this work, we have re-implemented and enhanced the Berkeley parser (Petrov and Klein 2007) in several ways: (1) developed a new method to handle rare words in English and Chinese;",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"text": "(Petrov and Klein 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Latent Annotation Parser",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "(2) developed a new model of unknown Chinese words based on characters in the word;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Latent Annotation Parser",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "(3) increased robustness by adding adaptive modification of pruning thresholds and smoothing of word emission probabilities. While the enhancements to the parser are important for robustness and accuracy, it is even more important to train grammars matched to the conditions of use. For example, parsing a Chinese sentence containing full-width punctuation with a parser trained on half-width punctuation reduces accuracy by over 9% absolute F. In English, parsing accuracy is seriously compromised by training a grammar with punctuation and case to process sentences without them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Latent Annotation Parser",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We developed grammars for English and Chinese trained specifically for each genre by subsampling from available treebanks (for English, WSJ, BN, Brown, Fisher, and Switchboard; for Chinese, CTB5) and transforming them for a particular genre (e.g., for informal speech, we replaced symbolic expressions with verbal forms and remove punctuation and case) and by utilizing a large amount of genre-matched self-labeled training parses. Given these genre-specific parses, we extracted chunks and POS tags by script. We also trained grammars with a subset of function tags annotated in the treebank that indicate case role information (e.g., SBJ, OBJ, LOC, MNR) in order to produce function tags.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Latent Annotation Parser",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The English systems were developed for the monolingual 5W task and not modified to handle MT. They used hand-crafted rules on the output of the latent annotation parser to extract the 5Ws.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Individual 5W Systems",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "English-function used the function tags from the parser to map parser constituents to the 5Ws. First the Who, When, Where and Why were extracted, and then the remaining pieces of the sentence were returned as the What. The goal was to make sure to return a complete What answer and avoid missing the object.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Individual 5W Systems",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "English-LF, on the other hand, used a system developed over a period of eight years (Meyers et al. 2001) to map from the parser's syntactic constituents into logical grammatical relations (GLARF), and then extracted the 5Ws from the logical form. As a back-up, it also extracted GLARF relations from another English-treebank trained parser, the Charniak parser (Charniak 2001) . After the parses were both converted to the 5Ws, they were then merged, favoring the system that: recognized the passive, filled more 5W slots or produced shorter 5W slots (providing that the WHAT slot consisted of more than just the verb). A third back-up method extracted 5Ws from part-of-speech tag patterns. Unlike English-function, English-LF explicitly tried to extract the shortest What possible, provided there was a verb and a possible object, in order to avoid multiple predicates or other 5W answers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 104,
"text": "(Meyers et al. 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 376,
"text": "(Charniak 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Individual 5W Systems",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Chinese-align uses the latent annotation parser (trained for Chinese) to parse the Chinese sentences. A dependency tree converter (Johansson and Nuges 2007) was applied to the constituent-based parse trees to obtain the dependency relations and determine top-level predicates. A set of hand-crafted dependency rules based on observation of Chinese OntoNotes were used to map from the Chinese function tags into Chinese 5Ws. Finally, Chinese-align used the alignments of three separate MT systems to translate the 5Ws: a phrase-based system, a hierarchical phrase-based system, and a syntax augmented hierarchical phrase-based system. Chinese-align faced a number of problems in using the alignments, including the fact that the best MT did not always have the best alignment. Since the predicate is essential, it tried to detect when verbs were deleted in MT, and back-off to a different MT system. It also used strategies for finding and correcting noisy alignments, and for filtering When/Where answers from Who and What.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Individual 5W Systems",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "A merging algorithm was learned based on a development test set. The algorithm selected all 5W's from a single system, rather than trying to merge W's from different systems, since the predicates may vary across systems. For each document genre (described in section 5.4), we ranked the systems by performance on the development data. We also experimented with a variety of features (for instance, does \"What\" include a verb). The best-performing features were used in combination with the ranked list of priority systems to create a rule-based merger.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hybrid System",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The MT Combination system used by both of the English 5W systems combined up to nine separate MT systems. System weights for combination were optimized together with the language model score and word penalty for a combination of BLEU and TER (2*(1-BLEU) + TER). Rescoring was applied after system combination using large language models and lexical trigger models. Of the nine systems, six were phrasedbased systems (one of these used chunk-level reordering of the Chinese, one used word sense disambiguation, and one used unsupervised Chinese word segmentation), two were hierarchical phrase-based systems, one was a string-todependency system, one was syntax-augmented, and one was a combination of two other systems. Bleu scores on the government supplied test set in December 2008 were 35.2 for formal text, 29.2 for informal text, 33.2 for formal speech, and 27.6 for informal speech. More details may be found in (Matusov et al. 2009) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 919,
"end": 940,
"text": "(Matusov et al. 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MT Systems",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "For the purposes of this evaluation 2 , we compared the output of 4 systems: English-Function, English-LF, Chinese-align, and the combined system. Each English system was also run on reference translations of the Chinese sentence. So for each sentence in the evaluation corpus, there were 6 systems that each provided 5Ws.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Systems",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "For each 5W output, annotators were presented with the reference translation, the MT version, and the 5W answers. The 5W system names were hidden from the annotators. Annotators had to select \"Correct\", \"Partial\" or \"Incorrect\" for each W. For answers that were Partial or Incorrect, annotators had to further specify the source of the error based on several categories (described in section 6). All three annotators were native English speakers who were not system developers for any of the 5W systems that were being evaluated (to avoid biased grading, or assigning more blame to the MT system). None of the annotators knew Chinese, so all of the judgments were based on the reference translations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Answer Annotation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "After one round of annotation, we measured inter-annotator agreement on the Correct, Partial, or Incorrect judgment only. The kappa value was 0.42, which was lower than we expected. Another surprise was that the agreement was lower for When, Where and Why (\u03ba=0.31) than for Who or What (\u03ba=0.48). We found that, in cases where a system would get both Who and What wrong, it was often ambiguous how the remaining W's should be graded. Consider the sentence: \"He went to the store yesterday and cooked lasagna today.\" A system might return erroneous Who and What answers, and return Where as \"to the store\" and When as \"today.\" Since Where and When apply to different predicates, they cannot both be correct. In order to be consistent, if a system returned erroneous Who and What answers, we decided to mark the When, Where and Why answers Incorrect by default. We added clarifications to the guidelines and discussed areas of confusion, and then the annotators reviewed and updated their judgments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Answer Annotation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "After this round of annotating, \u03ba=0.83 on the Correct, Partial, Incorrect judgments. The remaining disagreements were genuinely ambiguous cases, where a sentence could be interpreted multiple ways, or the MT could be understood in various ways. There was higher agreement on 5W's answers from the reference text compared to MT text, since MT is inherently harder to judge and some annotators were more flexible than others in grading garbled MT.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Answer Annotation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "In addition to judging the system answers by the task guidelines, annotators were asked to provide reason(s) an answer was wrong by selecting from a list of predefined errors. Annotators were asked to use their best judgment to \"assign blame\" to the 5W system, the MT, or both. There were six types of system errors and four types of MT errors, and the annotator could select any number of errors. (Errors are described further in section 6.) For instance, if the translation was correct, but the 5W system still failed, the blame would be assigned to the system. If the 5W system picked an incorrectly translated argument (e.g., \"baked a moon\" instead of \"baked a cake\"), then the error would be assigned to the MT system. Annotators could also assign blame to both systems, to indicate that they both made mistakes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Error Annotation",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "Since this annotation task was a 10-way selection, with multiple selections possible, there were some disagreements. However, if categorized broadly into 5W System errors only, MT errors only, and both 5W System and MT errors, then the annotators had a substantial level of agreement (\u03ba=0.75 for error type, on sentences where both annotators indicated an error).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5W Error Annotation",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "The full evaluation corpus is 350 documents, roughly evenly divided between four genres: formal text (newswire), informal text (blogs and newsgroups), formal speech (broadcast news) and informal speech (broadcast conversation). For this analysis, we randomly sampled documents to judge from each of the genres. There were 50 documents (249 sentences) that were judged by a single annotator. A subset of that set, with 22 documents and 103 sentences, was judged by two annotators. In comparing the results from one annotator to the results from both annotators, we found substantial agreement. Therefore, we present results from the single annotator so we can do a more in-depth analysis. Since each sentence had 5W's, and there were 6 systems that were compared, there were 7,500 single-annotator judgments over 249 sentences. Figure 1 shows the cross-lingual performance (on MT) of all the systems for each 5W. The best monolingual performance (on human translations) is shown as a dashed line (% Correct only). If a system returned Incorrect answers for Who and What, then the other answers were marked Incorrect (as explained in section 5.2). For the last 3W's, the majority of errors were due to this (details in Figure 1 ), so our error analysis focuses on the Who and What questions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 827,
"end": 835,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1225,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5 W Corpus",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "To establish a monolingual baseline, the English 5W system was run on reference (human) translations of the Chinese text. For each partial or incorrect answer, annotators could select one or more of these reasons:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Wrong predicate or multiple predicates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Answer contained another 5W answer.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Passive handled wrong (WHO/WHAT).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Answer missed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Argument attached to wrong predicate. Figure 1 shows the performance of the best monolingual system for each 5W as a dashed line. The What question was the hardest, since it requires two pieces of information (the predicate and object). The When, Where and Why questions were easier, since they were null most of the time. (In English OntoNotes 2.0, 38% of sentences have a When, 15% of sentences have a Where, and only 2.6% of sentences have a Why.) The most common monolingual system error on these three questions was a missed answer, accounting for all of the Where errors, all but one Why error and 71% of the When errors. The remaining When errors usually occurred when the system assumed the wrong sense for adverbs (such as \"then\" or \"just\").",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 48,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Monolingual 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Other 5W",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Missing",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Wrong The top half of Table 3 shows the reasons attributed to the Who/What errors for the reference corpus. Since English-LF preferred shorter answers, it frequently missed answers or parts of Figure 1 . System performance on each 5W. \"Partial\" indicates that part of the answer was missing. Dashed lines show the performance of the best monolingual system (% Correct on human translations). For the last 3W's, the percent of answers that were Incorrect \"by default\" were: 30%, 24%, 27% and 22%, respectively, and 8% for the best monolingual system 60 60 56 66 36 40 38 42 56 59 59 64 63 70 66 73 68 75 71 78 19 20 19 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 answers. English-LF also had more Partial answers on the What question: 66% Correct and 12% Partial, versus 75% Correct and 1% Partial for English-function. On the other hand, Englishfunction was more likely to return answers that contained incorrect extra information, such as another 5W or a second predicate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 29,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 201,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 679,
"text": "best monolingual system 60 60 56 66 36 40 38 42 56 59 59 64 63 70 66 73 68 75 71 78 19 20 19 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Missing",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The cross-lingual 5W task requires that systems return intelligible responses that are semantically equivalent to the source sentence (or, in the case of this evaluation, equivalent to the reference).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of MT on 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "As can be seen in Figure 1 , MT degrades the performance of the 5W systems significantly, for all question types, and for all systems. Averaged over all questions, the best monolingual system does 19% better than the best cross-lingual system. Surprisingly, even though English-function outperformed English-LF on the reference data, English-LF does consistently better on MT. This is likely due to its use of multiple back-off methods when the parser failed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of MT on 5W Performance",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The Chinese system did slightly worse than either English system overall, but in the formal text genre, it outperformed both English systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Source-Language vs. Target-Language",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "Although the accuracies for the Chinese and English systems are similar, the answers vary a lot. Nearly half (48%) of the answers can be answered correctly by both the English system and the Chinese system. But 22% of the time, the English system returned the correct answer when the Chinese system did not. Conversely, 10% of the answers were returned correctly by the Chinese system and not the English systems. The hybrid system described in section 4.2 attempts to exploit these complementary advantages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Source-Language vs. Target-Language",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "After running the hybrid system, 61% of the answers were from English-LF, 25% from English-function, 7% from Chinese-align, and the remaining 7% were from the other Chinese methods (not evaluated here). The hybrid did better than its parent systems on all 5Ws, and the numbers above indicate that further improvement is possible with a better combination strategy.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Source-Language vs. Target-Language",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "For each Partial or Incorrect answer, annotators were asked to select system errors, translation errors, or both. (Further analysis is necessary to distinguish between ASR errors and MT errors.) The translation errors considered were:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Lingual 5W Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Word/phrase deleted.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Lingual 5W Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Word/phrase mistranslated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Lingual 5W Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Word order mixed up.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Lingual 5W Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 MT unreadable. Table 4 shows the translation reasons attributed to the Who/What errors. For all systems, the errors were almost evenly divided between system-only, MT-only and both, although the Chinese system had a higher percentage of systemonly errors. The hybrid system was able to overcome many system errors (for example, in Table 2 , only 13% of the errors are due to missing answers), but still suffered from MT errors. Mistranslation was the biggest translation problem for all the systems. Consider the first example in Figure 3 . Both English systems correctly extracted the Who and the When, but for Unreadable MT-func 34 18 24 18 MT-LF 29 22 21 14 Chinese 32 17 9 13 Hybrid 35 19 27 18 MT: After several rounds of reminded, I was a little bit Ref:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 24,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 341,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 541,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 722,
"text": "Unreadable MT-func 34 18 24 18 MT-LF 29 22 21 14 Chinese 32 17 9 13 Hybrid 35 19 27 18",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Lingual 5W Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "After several hints, it began to come back to me.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Deletion Word Order",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MT: The Guizhou province, within a certain bank robber, under the watchful eyes of a weak woman, and, with a knife stabbed the woman. Ref: I saw that in a bank in Guizhou Province, robbers seized a vulnerable young woman in front of a group of onlookers and stabbed the woman with a knife.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u7ecf\u8fc7\u51e0\u756a\u63d0\u9192,\u6211\u56de\u5fc6\u8d77\u6765\u4e86\u4e00\u70b9\u70b9\u3002",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MT: Woke up after it was discovered that the property is not more than eleven people do not even said that the memory of the receipt of the country into the country. Ref: Well, after waking up, he found everything was completely changed. Apart from having additional eleven grandchildren, even the motherland as he recalled has changed from a socialist country to a capitalist country.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u770b\u5230\u8d35\u5dde\u7701\u67d0\u94f6\u884c\u5185,\u52ab\u532a\u5728\u4f17\u76ee\u777d\u777d\u4e4b\u4e0b,\u62a2\u593a\u4e00\u4e2a\u5f31\u5973\u5b50,\u5e76\u4e14,\u7528\u5200\u523a\u4f24\u8be5\u5973\u5b50\u3002",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Figure 3 Example sentences that presented problems for the 5W systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u90a3\u4e48\u9192\u6765\u4e4b\u540e\u5374\u53d1\u73b0\u7269\u662f\u4eba\u975e,\u591a\u4e86\u5341\u4e00\u4e2a\u5b59\u5b50\u4e0d\u8bf4,\u8fde\u7956\u56fd\u4e5f\u4ece\u8bb0\u5fc6\u5f53\u4e2d\u7684\u793e\u4f1a\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6\u53d8\u6210\u4e86\u8d44\u672c\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "What they returned \"was a little bit.\" This is the correct predicate for the sentence, but it does not match the meaning of the reference. The Chinese 5W system was able to select a better translation, and instead returned \"remember a little bit.\" Garbled word order was chosen for 21-24% of the target-language system Who/What errors, but only 9% of the source-language system Who/What errors. The source-language word order problems tended to be local, within-phrase errors (e.g., \"the dispute over frozen funds\" was translated as \"the freezing of disputes\"). The target-language system word order problems were often long-distance problems. For example, the second sentence in Figure 3 has many phrases in common with the reference translation, but the overall sentence makes no sense. The watchful eyes actually belong to a \"group of onlookers\" (deleted). Ideally, the robber would have \"stabbed the woman\" \"with a knife,\" rather than vice versa. Long-distance phrase movement is a common problem in Chinese-English MT, and many MT systems try to handle it (e.g., Wang et al. 2007) . By doing analysis in the source language, the Chinese 5W system is often able to avoid this problem -for example, it successfully returned \"robbers\" \"grabbed a weak woman\" for the Who/What of this sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1068,
"end": 1085,
"text": "Wang et al. 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 680,
"end": 688,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u90a3\u4e48\u9192\u6765\u4e4b\u540e\u5374\u53d1\u73b0\u7269\u662f\u4eba\u975e,\u591a\u4e86\u5341\u4e00\u4e2a\u5b59\u5b50\u4e0d\u8bf4,\u8fde\u7956\u56fd\u4e5f\u4ece\u8bb0\u5fc6\u5f53\u4e2d\u7684\u793e\u4f1a\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6\u53d8\u6210\u4e86\u8d44\u672c\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although we expected that the Chinese system would have fewer problems with MT deletion, since it could choose from three different MT versions, MT deletion was a problem for all systems. In looking more closely at the deletions, we noticed that over half of deletions were verbs that were completely missing from the translated sentence. Since MT systems are tuned for wordbased overlap measures (such as BLEU), verb deletion is penalized equally as, for example, determiner deletion. Intuitively, a verb deletion destroys the central meaning of a sentence, while a determiner is rarely necessary for comprehension. Other kinds of deletions included noun phrases, pronouns, named entities, negations and longer connecting phrases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u90a3\u4e48\u9192\u6765\u4e4b\u540e\u5374\u53d1\u73b0\u7269\u662f\u4eba\u975e,\u591a\u4e86\u5341\u4e00\u4e2a\u5b59\u5b50\u4e0d\u8bf4,\u8fde\u7956\u56fd\u4e5f\u4ece\u8bb0\u5fc6\u5f53\u4e2d\u7684\u793e\u4f1a\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6\u53d8\u6210\u4e86\u8d44\u672c\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Deletion also affected When and Where. Deleting particles such as \"in\" and \"when\" that indicate a location or temporal argument caused the English systems to miss the argument. Word order problems in MT also caused attachment ambiguity in When and Where.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u90a3\u4e48\u9192\u6765\u4e4b\u540e\u5374\u53d1\u73b0\u7269\u662f\u4eba\u975e,\u591a\u4e86\u5341\u4e00\u4e2a\u5b59\u5b50\u4e0d\u8bf4,\u8fde\u7956\u56fd\u4e5f\u4ece\u8bb0\u5fc6\u5f53\u4e2d\u7684\u793e\u4f1a\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6\u53d8\u6210\u4e86\u8d44\u672c\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The \"unreadable\" category was an option of last resort for very difficult MT sentences. The third sentence in Figure 3 is an example where ASR and MT errors compounded to create an unparseable sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 118,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u90a3\u4e48\u9192\u6765\u4e4b\u540e\u5374\u53d1\u73b0\u7269\u662f\u4eba\u975e,\u591a\u4e86\u5341\u4e00\u4e2a\u5b59\u5b50\u4e0d\u8bf4,\u8fde\u7956\u56fd\u4e5f\u4ece\u8bb0\u5fc6\u5f53\u4e2d\u7684\u793e\u4f1a\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6\u53d8\u6210\u4e86\u8d44\u672c\u4e3b\u4e49\u56fd\u5bb6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In our evaluation of various 5W systems, we discovered several characteristics of the task. The What answer was the hardest for all systems, since it is difficult to include enough information to cover the top-level predicate and object, without getting penalized for including too much. The challenge in the When, Where and Why questions is due to sparsity -these responses occur in much fewer sentences than Who and What, so systems most often missed these answers. Since this was a new task, this first evaluation showed clear issues on the language analysis side that can be improved in the future.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The best cross-lingual 5W system was still 19% worse than the best monolingual 5W system, which shows that MT significantly degrades sentence-level understanding. A serious problem in MT for systems was deletion. Chinese constituents that were never translated caused serious problems, even when individual systems had strategies to recover. When the verb was deleted, no top level predicate could be found and then all 5Ws were wrong.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "One of our main research questions was whether to extract or translate first. We hypothesized that doing source-language analysis would be more accurate, given the noise in Chinese MT, but the systems performed about the same. This is probably because the English tools (logical form extraction and parser) were more mature and accurate than the Chinese tools.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Although neither source-language nor targetlanguage analysis was able to circumvent problems in MT, each approach had advantages relative to the other, since they did well on different sets of sentences. For example, Chinese-align had fewer problems with word order, and most of those were due to local word-order problems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Since the source-language and target-language systems made different kinds of mistakes, we were able to build a hybrid system that used the relative advantages of each system to outperform all systems. The different types of mistakes made by each system suggest features that can be used to improve the combination system in the future.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The specific guidelines for determining correctness were formulated by BAE.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that an official evaluation was also performed by DARPA and BAE. This evaluation provides more finegrained detail on error types and gives results for the different approaches.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under contract number HR0011-06-C-0023. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The Berkeley FrameNet project",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Collin",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Baker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Charles",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Fillmore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Lowe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "COLING-ACL '98: Proceedings of the Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "86--90",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Collin F. Baker, Charles J. Fillmore, and John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL '98: Proceedings of the Conference, held at the University of Montr\u00e9al, pages 86-90.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Introduction to the CoNLL-2005 shared task: Semantic role labeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Xavier",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carreras",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Llu\u00eds",
"middle": [],
"last": "M\u00e0rquez",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "152--164",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Xavier Carreras and Llu\u00eds M\u00e0rquez. 2005. Introduc- tion to the CoNLL-2005 shared task: Semantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005), pages 152-164.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Immediate-head parsing for language models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting on Association For Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eugene Charniak. 2001. Immediate-head parsing for language models. In Proceedings of the 39th An- nual Meeting on Association For Computational Linguistics (Toulouse, France, July 06 -11, 2001).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Use of deep linguistic features for the recognition and labeling of semantic arguments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Owen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rambow",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Chen and Owen Rambow. 2003. Use of deep linguistic features for the recognition and labeling of semantic arguments. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, Sapporo, Japan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Shalmanesera toolchain for shallow semantic parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katrin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pado",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of LREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Katrin Erk and Sebastian Pado. 2006. Shalmaneser - a toolchain for shallow semantic parsing. Proceed- ings of LREC.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Automatic labeling of semantic roles",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "245--288",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky. 2002. Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguis- tics, 28(3):245-288.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "The necessity of parsing for predicate argument recognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel Gildea and Martha Palmer. 2002. The neces- sity of parsing for predicate argument recognition. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), Philadelphia, PA, USA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Chinese Statistical Parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harper",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zhongqiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mary Harper and Zhongqiang Huang. 2009. Chinese Statistical Parsing, chapter to appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A joint model for semantic role labeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aria",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haghighi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kristina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Toutanova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "173--176",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aria Haghighi, Kristina Toutanova, and Christopher Manning. 2005. A joint model for semantic role la- beling. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005), pages 173-176.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Propbank: the next level of treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kingsbury",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of Treebanks and Lexical Theories",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Paul Kingsbury and Martha Palmer. 2003. Propbank: the next level of treebank. In Proceedings of Tree- banks and Lexical Theories.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Learning to combine machine translation systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Evgeny",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matusov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Gregor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leusch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hermann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Learning machine translation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "257--276",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Evgeny Matusov, Gregor Leusch, & Hermann Ney: Learning to combine machine translation systems. In: Cyril Goutte, Nicola Cancedda, Marc Dymet- man, & George Foster (eds.) Learning machine translation. (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2009); pp.257-276.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Covering Treebanks with GLARF",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Meyers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ralph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grishman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michiko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kosaka",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shubin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ACL 2001 Workshop on Sharing Tools and Resources. Annual Meeting of the ACL. Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "51--58",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Adam Meyers, Ralph Grishman, Michiko Kosaka and Shubin Zhao. 2001. Covering Treebanks with GLARF. In Proceedings of the ACL 2001 Work- shop on Sharing Tools and Resources. Annual Meeting of the ACL. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 51-58.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Overview of the NTCIR-7 ACLIA Tasks: Advanced Cross-Lingual Information Access",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Teruko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mitamura",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nyberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hideki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shima",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tsuneaki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kato",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tatsunori",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mori",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chin-Yew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ruihua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Song",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chuan-Jie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tetsuya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sakai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Donghong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ji",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noriko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kando",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Seventh NTCIR Workshop Meeting",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Teruko Mitamura, Eric Nyberg, Hideki Shima, Tsuneaki Kato, Tatsunori Mori, Chin-Yew Lin, Ruihua Song, Chuan-Jie Lin, Tetsuya Sakai, Donghong Ji, and Noriko Kando. 2008. Overview of the NTCIR-7 ACLIA Tasks: Advanced Cross- Lingual Information Access. In Proceedings of the Seventh NTCIR Workshop Meeting.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Exploiting syntactic and shallow semantic kernels for question answer classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alessandro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moschitti",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Silvia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quarteroni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roberto",
"middle": [],
"last": "Basili",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Suresh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manandhar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "776--783",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alessandro Moschitti, Silvia Quarteroni, Roberto Basili, and Suresh Manandhar. 2007. Exploiting syntactic and shallow semantic kernels for question answer classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 776-783.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Simultaneous multilingual search for translingual information retrieval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kristen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Parton",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Enrique",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henestroza",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACM 17th Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kristen Parton, Kathleen R. McKeown, James Allan, and Enrique Henestroza. Simultaneous multilingual search for translingual information retrieval. In Proceedings of ACM 17th Conference on Informa- tion and Knowledge Management (CIKM), Napa Valley, CA, 2008.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Improved Inference for Unlexicalized Parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Slav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petrov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Slav Petrov and Dan Klein. 2007. Improved Inference for Unlexicalized Parsing. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL 2007).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Crosslingual information extraction system evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sudo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sekine",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grishman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 20th international Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sudo, K., Sekine, S., and Grishman, R. 2004. Cross- lingual information extraction system evaluation. In Proceedings of the 20th international Confer- ence on Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Shallow Semantic Parsing of Chinese",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Honglin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of NAACL-HLT",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Honglin Sun and Daniel Jurafsky. 2004. Shallow Se- mantic Parsing of Chinese. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "A generative model for semantic role labeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cynthia",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roger",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "14th European Conference on Machine Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cynthia A. Thompson, Roger Levy, and Christopher Manning. 2003. A generative model for semantic role labeling. In 14th European Conference on Ma- chine Learning.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Calibrating features for semantic role labeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP 2004",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "88--94",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nianwen Xue and Martha Palmer. 2004. Calibrating features for semantic role labeling. In Dekang Lin and Dekai Wu, editors, Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, pages 88-94, Barcelona, Spain, July. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Automatic semantic role labeling for Chinese verbs. InProceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1160--1165",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Xue, Nianwen and Martha Palmer. 2005. Automatic semantic role labeling for Chinese verbs. InPro- ceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1160-1165.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Chinese Syntactic Reordering for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Philipp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koehn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "737--745",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chao Wang, Michael Collins, and Philipp Koehn. 2007. Chinese Syntactic Reordering for Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing and Computational Natural Lan- guage Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), 737-745.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Combining Bidirectional Translation and Synonymy for Cross-Language Information Retrieval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jianqiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Douglas",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Oard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "202--209",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jianqiang Wang and Douglas W. Oard, 2006. \"Com- bining Bidirectional Translation and Synonymy for Cross-Language Information Retrieval,\" in 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Re- trieval, pp. 202-209.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Percentages of Who/What errors attributed to each system error type.",
"num": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Percentages of Who/What errors by each system attributed to each translation error type.",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |