File size: 84,679 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 | {
"paper_id": "P10-1012",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:20:41.973615Z"
},
"title": "Automatic Evaluation Method for Machine Translation using Noun-Phrase Chunking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hiroshi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Echizen-Ya",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Hokkai-Gakuen University",
"location": {
"addrLine": "S 26-Jo, W 11-chome, Chuo-ku",
"postCode": "064-0926",
"settlement": "Sapporo",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Araki",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Hokkaido University",
"location": {
"addrLine": "N 14-Jo, W 9-Chome, Kita-ku",
"postCode": "060-0814",
"settlement": "Sapporo",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": "araki@media.eng.hokudai.ac.jp"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "As described in this paper, we propose a new automatic evaluation method for machine translation using noun-phrase chunking. Our method correctly determines the matching words between two sentences using corresponding noun phrases. Moreover, our method determines the similarity between two sentences in terms of the noun-phrase order of appearance. Evaluation experiments were conducted to calculate the correlation among human judgments, along with the scores produced using automatic evaluation methods for MT outputs obtained from the 12 machine translation systems in NTCIR-7. Experimental results show that our method obtained the highest correlations among the methods in both sentence-level adequacy and fluency.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P10-1012",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "As described in this paper, we propose a new automatic evaluation method for machine translation using noun-phrase chunking. Our method correctly determines the matching words between two sentences using corresponding noun phrases. Moreover, our method determines the similarity between two sentences in terms of the noun-phrase order of appearance. Evaluation experiments were conducted to calculate the correlation among human judgments, along with the scores produced using automatic evaluation methods for MT outputs obtained from the 12 machine translation systems in NTCIR-7. Experimental results show that our method obtained the highest correlations among the methods in both sentence-level adequacy and fluency.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "High-quality automatic evaluation has become increasingly important as various machine translation systems have developed. The scores of some automatic evaluation methods can obtain high correlation with human judgment in document-level automatic evaluation (Coughlin, 2007) . However, sentence-level automatic evaluation is insufficient. A great gap exists between language processing of automatic evaluation and the processing by humans. Therefore, in recent years, various automatic evaluation methods particularly addressing sentence-level automatic evaluations have been proposed. Methods based on word strings (e.g., BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) , NIST(NIST, 2002) , METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie., 2005) , ROUGE-L (Lin and Och, 2004) , and IMPACT(Echizen-ya and Araki, 2007)) calculate matching scores using only common words between MT outputs and references from bilingual humans. However, these methods cannot determine the correct word correspondences sufficiently because they fail to focus solely on phrase correspondences. Moreover, various methods using syntactic analytical tools (Pozar and Charniak, 2006; Mutton et al., 2007; Mehay and Brew, 2007) are proposed to address the sentence structure. Nevertheless, those methods depend strongly on the quality of the syntactic analytical tools.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 258,
"end": 274,
"text": "(Coughlin, 2007)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 628,
"end": 651,
"text": "(Papineni et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 670,
"text": "NIST(NIST, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 707,
"text": "(Banerjee and Lavie., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 737,
"text": "(Lin and Och, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 1093,
"end": 1119,
"text": "(Pozar and Charniak, 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1120,
"end": 1140,
"text": "Mutton et al., 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1141,
"end": 1162,
"text": "Mehay and Brew, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "As described herein, for use with MT systems, we propose a new automatic evaluation method using noun-phrase chunking to obtain higher sentence-level correlations. Using noun phrases produced by chunking, our method yields the correct word correspondences and determines the similarity between two sentences in terms of the noun phrase order of appearance. Evaluation experiments using MT outputs obtained by 12 machine translation systems in NTCIR-7 (Fujii et al., 2008) demonstrate that the scores obtained using our system yield the highest correlation with the human judgments among the automatic evaluation methods in both sentence-level adequacy and fluency. Moreover, the differences between correlation coefficients obtained using our method and other methods are statistically significant at the 5% or lower significance level for adequacy. Results confirmed that our method using noun-phrase chunking is effective for automatic evaluation for machine translation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 451,
"end": 471,
"text": "(Fujii et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The system based on our method has four processes. First, the system determines the corre-spondences of noun phrases between MT outputs and references using chunking. Secondly, the system calculates word-level scores based on the correct matched words using the determined correspondences of noun phrases. Next, the system calculates phrase-level scores based on the noun-phrase order of appearance. The system calculates the final scores combining word-level scores and phrase-level scores.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Automatic Evaluation Method using Noun-Phrase Chunking",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The system obtains the noun phrases from each sentence by chunking. It then determines corresponding noun phrases between MT outputs and references calculating the similarity for two noun phrases by the PER score (Su et al., 1992) . In that case, PER scores of two kinds are calculated. One is the ratio of the number of match words between an MT output and reference for the number of all words of the MT output. The other is the ratio of the number of match words between the MT output and reference for the number of all words of the reference. The similarity is obtained as an F -measure between two PER scores. The high score represents that the similarity between two noun phrases is high. Figure 1 presents an example of the determination of the corresponding noun phrases. (2) Determination of corresponding noun phrases In Fig. 1 , \"the amount\", \"the crowning fall\" and \"the end\" are obtained as noun phrases in MT output by chunking, and \"it\", \"the end part\", \"the amount\" and \"crowning drop\" are obtained in the reference by chunking. Next, the system determines the corresponding noun phrases from these noun phrases between the MT output and reference. The score between \"the end\" and \"the end part\" is the highest among the scores between \"the end\" in the MT output and \"it\", \"the end part\", \"the amount\", and \"crowning drop\" in the reference. Moreover, the score between \"the end part\" and \"the end\" is the highest among the scores between \"the end part\" in reference and \"the amount\", \"the crowning fall\", \"the end\" in the MT output. Consequently, \"the end\" and \"the end part\" are selected as noun phrases with the highest mutual scores: \"the end\" and \"the end part\" are determined as one corresponding noun phrase. In Fig. 1 , \"the amount\" in the MT output and \"the amount\" in reference, and \"the crowning fall\" in the MT output and \"crowning drop\" in the reference also are determined as the respective corresponding noun phrases. The noun phrase for which the score between it and other noun phrases is 0.0 (e.g., \"it\" in reference) has no corresponding noun phrase. The use of the noun phrases is effective because the frequency of the noun phrases is higher than those of other phrases. The verb phrases are not used for this study, but they can also be generated by chunking. It is difficult to determine the corresponding verb phrases correctly because the words in each verb phrase are often fewer than the noun phrases.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 230,
"text": "(Su et al., 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 696,
"end": 704,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 832,
"end": 838,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 1735,
"end": 1741,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Correspondence of Noun Phrases by Chunking",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The system calculates the word-level scores between MT output and reference using the corresponding noun phrases. First, the system determines the common words based on Longest Common Subsequence (LCS). The system selects only one LCS route when several LCS routes exist. In such cases, the system calculates the Route Score (RS) using the following Eqs. (1) and (2):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "RS = c\u2208LCS w\u2208c weight(w) \u03b2 (1) weight(w) = \u23a7 \u23aa \u23aa \u23aa \u23a8 \u23aa \u23aa \u23aa \u23a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "words in corresponding 2 noun phrase words in non 1 corresponding noun phrase",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "(2) In Eq. 1, \u03b2 is a parameter for length weighting of common parts; it is greater than 1.0. Figure 2 portrays an example of determination of the common parts. In the first process of Fig. 2 , LCS is 7. In this example, several LCS routes exist. The system selects the LCS route which has \",\", \"the amount of\", \"crowning\", \"is\", and \".\" as the common parts. The common part is the part for which the common words appear continuously. In contrast, IMPACT selects a different LCS route that includes \", the\", \"amount of\", \"crowning\", \"is\", and \".\" as the common parts. In IMPACT, using no analytical knowledge, the LCS route is determined using the information of the number of words in the common parts and the position of the common parts. The RS for LCS route selected using our method is 32 (= 1 2.0 + (2 + 2 + 1) 2.0 + 2 2.0 + 1 2.0 + 1 2.0 ) when \u03b2 is 2.0. The RS for LCS route selected by IMPACT is 19 (= (1 + 1) 2.0 + (2 + 1) 2.0 + 2 2.0 + 1 2.0 + 1 2.0 ). In the LCS route selected by IMPACT, the weight of \"the\" in the common part \", the\" is 1 because \"the\" in the reference is not included in the corresponding noun phrase. In the LCS route selected using our method, the weight of \"the\" in \"the amount of\" is 2 because \"the\" in MT output and \"the\" in the reference are included in the corresponding noun phrase \"NP1\". Therefore, the system based on our method can select the correct LCS route.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 190,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Moreover, the word-level score is calculated using the common parts in the selected LCS route as the following Eqs. (3), (4), and (5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "R wd = \u239b \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 m \u03b2 \u239e \u23a0 1 \u03b2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "(3) (1) First process for determination of common parts : LCS = 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P wd = \u239b \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 n \u03b2 \u239e \u23a0 1 \u03b2",
"eq_num": "(4)"
}
],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "(2) Second process for determination of common parts : LCS=3 IMPACT 1 2.0 (2+2+1) 2.0 2 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 (1+1) 2.0 (2+1) 2.0 2 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 Figure 2 : Example of common-part determination.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 150,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score wd = (1 + \u03b3 2 )R wd P wd R wd + \u03b3 2 P wd",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Equation 3represents recall and Eq. (4) represents precision. Therein, m signifies the word number of the reference in Eq. 3, and n stands for the word number of the MT output in Eq. (4). Here, RN denotes the repetition number of the determination process of the LCS route, and i, which has initial value 0, is the counter for RN . In Eqs. 3and 4, \u03b1 is a parameter for the repetition process of the determination of LCS route, and is less than 1.0. Therefore, R wd and P wd becomes small as the appearance order of the common parts between MT output and reference is different. Moreover, length(c) represents the number of words in each common part; \u03b2 is a parameter related to the length weight of common parts, as in Eq. (1). In this case, the weight of each common word in the common part is 1. The system calculates score wd as the wordlevel score in Eq. (5). In Eq. 5, \u03b3 is determined as P wd /R wd . The score wd is between 0.0 and 1.0.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In the first process of Fig. 2 , \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 is 13.0 (=0.5 0 \u00d7 (1 2.0 + 3 2.0 + 1 2.0 + 1 2.0 + 1 2.0 )) when \u03b1 and \u03b2 are 0.5 and 2.0, respectively. In this case, the counter i is 0. Moreover, in the second process of Fig. 2, \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 is 2.5 (=0.5 1 \u00d7 (1 2.0 +2 2.0 )) using two common parts \"the\" and \"the end\", except the common parts determined using the first process. In Fig. 2 , RN is 1 because the system finishes calculating \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 when counter i became 1: this means that all common parts were processed until the second process. As a result, R wd is 0.1969 (= (13.0 + 2.5)/20 2.0 = \u221a 0.0388), and P wd is 0.2625 (= (13.0 + 2.5)/15 2.0 = \u221a 0.0689). Consequently, score wd is 0.2164 (= (1+1.3332 2 )\u00d70. 1969\u00d70.2625 0.1969+1.3332 2 \u00d70.2625 ). In this case, \u03b3 becomes 1.3332 (= 0.2625 0.1969 ). The system can determine the matching words correctly using the corresponding noun phrases between the MT output and the reference.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 751,
"end": 762,
"text": "1969\u00d70.2625",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 241,
"text": "Fig. 2, \u03b1 i",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 407,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The system calculates score wd multi using R wd multi and P wd multi which are, respectively, maximum R wd and P wd when multiple references are used as the following Eqs. (6), (7) and (8). In Eq. (8), \u03b3 is determined as P wd multi /R wd multi . The score wd multi is between 0.0 and 1.0.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "R wd multi = max u j=1 \u239b \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239d \u239b \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 j m \u03b2 j \u239e \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u23a0 1 \u03b2 \u239e \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u23a0 (6) P wd multi = max u j=1 \u239b \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239d \u239b \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239c \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i c\u2208LCS length(c) \u03b2 j n \u03b2 j \u239e \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u23a0 1 \u03b2 \u239e \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u239f \u23a0 (7) score wd multi = (1 + \u03b3 2 R wd multi )P wd multi R wd multi + \u03b3 2 P wd multi (8)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The system calculates the phrase-level score using the noun phrases obtained by chunking. First, the system extracts only noun phrases from sentences. Then it generalizes each noun phrase as each word. Figure 3 presents examples of generalization by noun phrases. (1) Corresponding noun phrases",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 210,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "(2) Generalization by noun phrases MT output : NP1 NP2 NP3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "Reference : NP NP3 NP1 NP2 Figure 3 : Example of generalization by noun phrases. Figure 3 presents three corresponding noun phrases between the MT output and the reference. The noun phrase \"it\", which has no corresponding noun phrase, is expressed as \"NP\" in the reference. Consequently, the MT output is generalized as \"NP1 NP2 NP3\"; the reference is generalized as \"NP NP3 NP1 NP2\". Subsequently, the system obtains the phraselevel score between the generalized MT output and reference as the following Eqs. (9), (10), and (11). ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "R np = \u239b \u239c \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i cnpp\u2208LCS length(cnpp) \u03b2 m cnp \u00d7 \u221a m no cnp \u03b2 \u239e \u239f \u23a0 1 \u03b2",
"eq_num": "(9)"
}
],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P np = \u239b \u239c \u239d RN i=0 \u03b1 i cnpp\u2208LCS length(cnpp) \u03b2 n cnp \u00d7 \u221a n no cnp \u03b2 \u239e \u239f \u23a0 1 \u03b2",
"eq_num": "(10)"
}
],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score np = (1 + \u03b3 2 )R np P np R np + \u03b3 2 P np",
"eq_num": "(11)"
}
],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "In Eqs. (9) and (10), cnpp denotes the common noun phrase parts; m cnp and n cnp respectively signify the quantities of common noun phrases in the reference and MT output. Moreover, m no cnp and n no cnp are the quantities of noun phrases except the common noun phrases in the reference and MT output. The values of m no cnp and n no cnp are processed as 1 when no non-corresponding noun phrases exist. The square root used for m no cnp and n no cnp is to decrease the weight of the noncorresponding noun phrases. In Eq. 11, \u03b3 is determined as P np /R np . In Fig. 3 , R np and P np are 0.7071 (= 1\u00d72 2.0 +0.5\u00d71 2.0 (3\u00d71) 2.0 ) when \u03b1 is 0.5 and \u03b2 is 2.0. Therefore, score np is 0.7071.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 560,
"end": 566,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "The system obtains score np multi calculating the average of score np when multiple references are used as the following Eq. (12).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score np multi = u j=0 (score np ) j u",
"eq_num": "(12)"
}
],
"section": "Phrase-level Score",
"sec_num": "2.3"
},
{
"text": "The system calculates the final score by combining the word-level score and the phraselevel score as shown in the following Eq. (13).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Final Score",
"sec_num": "2.4"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score = score wd + \u03b4 \u00d7 score np 1 + \u03b4",
"eq_num": "(13)"
}
],
"section": "Final Score",
"sec_num": "2.4"
},
{
"text": "Therein, \u03b4 represents a parameter for the weight of score np : it is between 0.0 and 1.0. The ratio of score wd to score np is 1:1 when \u03b4 is 1.0. Moreover, score wd multi and score np multi are used for Eq. (13) in multiple references. In Figs. 2 and 3 , the final score between the MT output and the reference is 0.4185 (= 0.2164+0.7\u00d70.7071",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 239,
"end": 252,
"text": "Figs. 2 and 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Final Score",
"sec_num": "2.4"
},
{
"text": ") when \u03b4 is 0.7. The system can realize high-quality automatic evaluation using both word-level information and phraselevel information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1+0.7",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We calculated the correlation between the scores obtained using our method and scores produced by human judgment. The system based on our method obtained the evaluation scores for 1,200 English output sentences related to the patent sentences. These English output sentences are sentences that 12 machine translation systems in NTCIR-7 translated from 100 Japanese sentences. Moreover, the number of references to each English sentence in 100 English sentences is four. These references were obtained from four bilingual humans. Table 1 presents types of the 12 machine translation systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 529,
"end": 536,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Moreover, three human judges evaluated 1,200 English output sentences from the perspective of adequacy and fluency on a scale of 1-5. We used the median value in the evaluation results of three human judges as the final scores of 1-5. We calculated Pearson's correlation efficient and Spearman's rank correlation efficient between the scores obtained using our method and the scores by human judgments in terms of sentence-level adequacy and fluency.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Additionally, we calculated the correlations between the scores using seven other methods and the scores by human judgments to compare our method with other automatic evaluation methods. The other seven methods were IMPACT, ROUGE-L, BLEU 1 , NIST, NMG-WN (Ehara, 2007; Echizen-ya et al., 2009) , METEOR 2 , and WER (Leusch et al., 2003) . Using our method, 0.1 was used as the value of the parameter \u03b1 in Eqs. (3)-(10) and 1.1 was used as the value of the parameter \u03b2 in Eqs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 255,
"end": 268,
"text": "(Ehara, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 293,
"text": "Echizen-ya et al., 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 336,
"text": "(Leusch et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(1)-(10). Moreover, 0.3 was used as the value of the parameter \u03b4 in Eq. (13). These val- (Utiyama and Isahara, 2003) . Moreover, we obtained the noun phrases using a shallow parser (Sha and Pereira, 2003) as the chunking tool. We revised some erroneous results that were obtained using the chunking tool.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 116,
"text": "(Utiyama and Isahara, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 204,
"text": "(Sha and Pereira, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Procedure",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "As described in this paper, we performed comparison experiments using our method and seven other methods. Tables 2 and 3 Underlining in our method signifies that the differences between correlation coefficients obtained using our method and IMPACT are statistically significant at the 5% significance level. Moreover, \"Avg.\" signifies the average of the correlation coefficients obtained by 12 machine translation systems in respective automatic evaluation methods, and \"All\" are the correlation coefficients using the scores of 1,200 output sentences obtained using the 12 machine translation systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"text": "Tables 2 and 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Results",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In Tables 2-5, the \"Avg.\" score of our method is shown to be higher than those of other methods. Especially in terms of the sentence-level adequacy shown in Tables 2 and 4, \"Avg.\" of our method is about 0.03 higher than that of IMPACT. Moreover, in system No. 8 and \"All\" of Tables 2 and 4, the differences between correlation coefficients obtained using our method and IMPACT are statistically significant at the 5% significance level. Moreover, we investigated the correlation of machine translation systems of every type. Table 6 shows \"All\" of Pearson's correlation coefficient and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient in SMT (i.e., system Nos. 1-2, system Nos. 4-8 and system Nos. 10-11) and RBMT (i.e., system Nos. 3 and 12). The scores of 900 output sentences obtained by 9 machine Table 6 because EBMT is only system No. 9. In Table 6 , our method obtained the highest correlation among the eight methods, except in terms of the adequacy of RBMT in Pearson's correlation coefficient. The differences between correlation coefficients obtained using our method and IMPACT are statistically significant at the 5% significance level for adequacy of SMT.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 792,
"end": 799,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 845,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "To confirm the effectiveness of noun-phrase chunking, we performed the experiment using a system combining BLEU with our method. In this case, BLEU scores were used as score wd in Eq. (13). This experimental result is shown as \"BLEU with our method\" in Tables 2-5. In the results of \"BLEU with our method\" in Tables 2-5, underlining signifies that the differences between correlation coefficients obtained using BLEU with our method and BLEU alone are statistically significant at the 5% significance level. The coefficients of correlation for BLEU with our method are higher than those of BLEU in any machine translation system, \"Avg.\" and \"All\" in Tables 2-5. Moreover, for sentence-level adequacy, BLEU with our method is significantly better than BLEU in almost all machine translation systems and \"All\" in Tables 2 and 4. These results indicate that our method using noun-phrase chunking is effective for some methods and that it is statistically significant in each machine translation system, not only \"All\", which has large sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, we investigated the precision of the determination process of the corresponding noun phrases described in section 2.1: in the results of system No. 1, we calculated the precision as the ratio of the number of the correct corresponding noun phrases for the number of all noun-phrase correspondences obtained using the system based on our method. Results show that the precision was 93.4%, demonstrating that our method can determine the corresponding noun phrases correctly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Moreover, we investigated the relation be- tween the correlation obtained by our method and the quality of chunking. In \"Our method\" shown in Tables 2-5, noun phrases for which some erroneous results obtained using the chunking tool were revised. \"Our method II\" of Tables 2-5 used noun phrases that were given as results obtained using the chunking tool. Underlining in \"Our method II\" of Tables 2-5 signifies that the differences between correlation coefficients obtained using our method II and IMPACT are statistically significant at the 5% significance level. Fundamentally, in both \"Avg.\" and \"All\" of Tables 2-5, the correlation coefficients of our method II without the revised noun phrases are lower than those of our method using the revised noun phrases. However, the difference between our method and our method II in \"Avg.\" and \"All\" of Tables 2-5 is not large. The performance of the chunking tool has no great influence on the results of our method because score wd in Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) do not depend strongly on the performance of the chunking tool. For example, in sentences shown in Fig. 2 , all common parts are the same as the common parts of Fig. 2 when \"the crowning fall\" in the MT output and \"crowning drop\" in the reference are not determined as the noun phrases. Other common parts are determined correctly because the weight of the common part \"the amount of\" is higher than those of other common parts by Eqs. (1) and (2). Consequently, the determination of the common parts except \"the amount of\" is not difficult.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1106,
"end": 1112,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1168,
"end": 1174,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "In other language sentences, we already performed the experiments using Japanese sentences from Reuters articles (Oyamada et al., 2010) . Results show that the correlation coefficients of IMPACT with our method, for which IMPACT scores were used as score wd in Eq. (13), were highest among some methods. Therefore, our method might not be languagedependent. Nevertheless, experiments using various language data are necessary to elucidate this point.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 135,
"text": "(Oyamada et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "As described herein, we proposed a new automatic evaluation method for machine transla- tion. Our method calculates the scores for MT outputs using noun-phrase chunking. Consequently, the system obtains scores using the correctly matched words and phrase-level information based on the corresponding noun phrases. Experimental results demonstrate that our method yields the highest correlation among eight methods in terms of sentencelevel adequacy and fluency.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Future studies will improve our method, enabling it to achieve high correlation in sentence-level fluency. Future studies will also include experiments using data of various languages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "BLEU was improved to perform sentence-level evaluation: the maximum N value between MT output and reference is used(Echizen-ya et al., 2009).2 The matching modules of METEOR are the exact and stemmed matching module, and a WordNet-based synonym-matching module.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was done as research under the AAMT/JAPIO Special Interest Group on Patent Translation. The Japan Patent Information Organization (JAPIO) and the National Institute of Informatics (NII) provided corpora used in this work. The author gratefully acknowledges JAPIO and NII for their support. Moreover, this work was partially supported by Grants from the High-Tech Research Center of Hokkai-Gakuen University and the Kayamori Foundation of Informational Science Advancement.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "ME-TEOR: An Automatic Metric for MT Evaluation with Improved Correlation with Human Judgments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Satanjeev",
"middle": [],
"last": "Banerjee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lavie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "65--72",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. ME- TEOR: An Automatic Metric for MT Eval- uation with Improved Correlation with Hu- man Judgments. In Proc. of ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summariza- tion, 65-72.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Correlating Automated and Human Assessments of Machine Translation Quality",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Deborah",
"middle": [],
"last": "Coughlin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proc. of MT Summit IX",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "63--70",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Deborah Coughlin. 2003. Correlating Automated and Human Assessments of Machine Translation Quality. In Proc. of MT Summit IX, 63-70.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation based on Recursive Acquisition of an Intuitive Common Parts Continuum",
"authors": [
{
"first": "-",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hiroshi Echizen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Araki",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. of MT Summit XII",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "151--158",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hiroshi Echizen-ya and Kenji Araki. 2007. Auto- matic Evaluation of Machine Translation based on Recursive Acquisition of an Intuitive Com- mon Parts Continuum. In Proc. of MT Summit XII, 151-158.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Meta-Evaluation of Automatic Evaluation Methods for Machine Translation using Patent Translation Data in NTCIR-7",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Terumasa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hiroshi Echizen-Ya",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sayori",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ehara",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Atsushi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shimohata",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Masao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fujii",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mikio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Utiyama",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Takehito",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yamamoto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noriko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Utsuro",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kando",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Patent Translation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "9--16",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hiroshi Echizen-ya, Terumasa Ehara, Sayori Shi- mohata, Atsushi Fujii, Masao Utiyama, Mikio Yamamoto, Takehito Utsuro and Noriko Kando. 2009. Meta-Evaluation of Automatic Evaluation Methods for Machine Translation using Patent Translation Data in NTCIR-7. In Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Patent Translation, 9-16.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Rule Based Machine Translation Combined with Statistical Post Editor for Japanese to English Patent Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Terumasa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ehara",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. of MT Summit XII Workshop on Patent Translation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "13--18",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Terumasa Ehara. 2007. Rule Based Machine Translation Combined with Statistical Post Ed- itor for Japanese to English Patent Transla- tion. In Proc. of MT Summit XII Workshop on Patent Translation, 13-18.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Overview of the Patent Translation Task at the NTCIR-7 Workshop",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Atsushi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fujii",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Masao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Utiyama",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mikio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yamamoto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Takehito",
"middle": [],
"last": "Utsuro",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proc. of 7th NTCIR Workshop Meeting on Evaluation of Information Access Technologies: Information Retrieval, Question Answering and Cross-lingual Information Access",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "389--400",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Atsushi Fujii, Masao Utiyama, Mikio Yamamoto and Takehito Utsuro. 2008. Overview of the Patent Translation Task at the NTCIR-7 Work- shop. In Proc. of 7th NTCIR Workshop Meeting on Evaluation of Information Access Technolo- gies: Information Retrieval, Question Answer- ing and Cross-lingual Information Access, 389- 400.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A Novel String-to-String Distance Measure with Applications to Machine Translation Evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gregor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leusch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nicola",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ueffing",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hermann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proc. of MT Summit IX",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "240--247",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gregor Leusch, Nicola Ueffing and Hermann Ney. 2003. A Novel String-to-String Distance Mea- sure with Applications to Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proc. of MT Summit IX, 240- 247.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Quality Using Longest Common Subsequence and Skip-Bigram Statistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chin-Yew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Franz Josef",
"middle": [],
"last": "Och",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL'04",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "606--613",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chin-Yew Lin and Franz Josef Och. 2004. Auto- matic Evaluation of Machine Translation Qual- ity Using Longest Common Subsequence and Skip-Bigram Statistics. In Proc. of ACL'04, 606-613.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "BLEU\u00c2TRE: Flattening Syntactic Dependencies for MT Evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dennis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mehay",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brew",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. of MT Summit XII",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "122--131",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dennis N. Mehay and Chris Brew. 2007. BLEU\u00c2TRE: Flattening Syntactic Dependen- cies for MT Evaluation. In Proc. of MT Summit XII, 122-131.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "GLEU: Automatic Evaluation of Sentence-Level Fluency",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mutton",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dras",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dale",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL'07",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "344--351",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew Mutton, Mark Dras, Stephen Wan and Robert Dale. 2007. GLEU: Automatic Eval- uation of Sentence-Level Fluency. In Proc. of ACL'07, 344-351.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Quality Using N-gram Co-Occurrence Statistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nist",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "NIST. 2002. Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Quality Us- ing N-gram Co-Occurrence Statistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Using both Words Information and Comprehensive Phrases Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Takashi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oyamada",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hiroshi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Echizen-Ya",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Araki",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "IPSJ SIG Technical Report",
"volume": "2010",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Takashi Oyamada, Hiroshi Echizen-ya and Kenji Araki. 2010. Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation Using both Words Information and Comprehensive Phrases Information. In IPSJ SIG Technical Report, Vol.2010-NL-195, No. 3 (in Japanese).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kishore",
"middle": [],
"last": "Papineni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Salim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roukos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Todd",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ward",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wei-Jing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proc. of ACL'02",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "311--318",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a Method for Au- tomatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proc. of ACL'02, 311-318.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Bllip: An Improved Evaluation Metric for Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pozar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Pozar and Eugene Charniak. 2006. Bllip: An Improved Evaluation Metric for Machine Translation. Brown University Master Thesis.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Shallow Parsing with Conditional Random Fields",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sha",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proc. of HLT-NAACL 2003",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "134--141",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fei Sha and Fernando Pereira. 2003. Shallow Pars- ing with Conditional Random Fields. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL 2003, 134-141.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "A New Quantitative Quality Measure for Machine Translation Systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Keh-Yih",
"middle": [],
"last": "Su",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ming-Wen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jing-Shin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proc. of GOL-ING'92",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "433--439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keh-Yih Su, Ming-Wen Wu and Jing-Shin Chang. 1992. A New Quantitative Quality Measure for Machine Translation Systems. In Proc. of GOL- ING'92, 433-439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Reliable Measures for Aligning Japanese-English News Articles and Sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Masao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Utiyama",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hitoshi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Isahara",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proc. of the ACL'03",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "72--79",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Masao Utiyama and Hitoshi Isahara. 2003. Re- liable Measures for Aligning Japanese-English News Articles and Sentences. In Proc. of the ACL'03, pp.72-79.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"text": "Example of determination of corresponding noun phrases.",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"text": "respectively show Pearson's correlation coefficient for sentence-level adequacy and fluency. Tables 4 and 5 respectively show Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for sentence-level adequacy and fluency. In Tables 2-5, bold typeface signifies the maximum correlation coefficients among eight automatic evaluation methods.",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "MT output : in general , [ NP1 the amount ] of [ NP2 the crowning fall ] is large like [ NP3 the end ] .",
"content": "<table/>"
},
"TABREF4": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Machine translation system types. System No. 8 System No. 9 System No. 10 System No. 11 System No. 12",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">System No. 1 System No. 2 System No. 3</td><td>System No. 4</td><td>System No. 5</td><td>System No. 6</td></tr><tr><td>Type</td><td>SMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>SMT</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">System No. 7 Type SMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>EBMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF5": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Pearson's correlation coefficient for sentence-level adequacy.",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>No. 1</td><td>No. 2</td><td>No. 3</td><td>No. 4</td><td>No. 5</td><td>No. 6</td><td>No. 7</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"7\">0.7862 0.4989 0.5970 0.5713 0.6581 0.6779 0.7682</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.7639</td><td>0.4487</td><td>0.5980</td><td>0.5371</td><td>0.6371</td><td>0.6255</td><td>0.7249</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.7597</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.4264 0.6111 0.5229</td><td>0.6183</td><td>0.5927</td><td>0.7079</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.6473</td><td>0.2463</td><td>0.4230</td><td>0.4336</td><td>0.3727</td><td>0.4124</td><td>0.5340</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.5135</td><td>0.2756</td><td>0.4142</td><td>0.3086</td><td>0.2553</td><td>0.2300</td><td>0.3628</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td>0.7010</td><td>0.3432</td><td>0.6067</td><td>0.4719</td><td>0.5441</td><td>0.5885</td><td>0.5906</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.4509</td><td>0.0892</td><td>0.3907</td><td>0.2781</td><td>0.3120</td><td>0.2744</td><td>0.3937</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.7464</td><td>0.4114</td><td>0.5519</td><td>0.5185</td><td>0.5461</td><td>0.5970</td><td>0.6902</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.7870</td><td>0.5066</td><td>0.5967</td><td>0.5191</td><td>0.6529</td><td>0.6635</td><td>0.7698</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.7244</td><td>0.3935</td><td>0.5148</td><td>0.5231</td><td>0.4882</td><td>0.5554</td><td>0.6459</td></tr><tr><td/><td>No. 8</td><td>No. 9</td><td colspan=\"3\">No. 10 No. 11 No. 12</td><td>Avg.</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"7\">0.7664 0.7208 0.6355 0.7781 0.5707 0.6691 0.6846</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.7007</td><td>0.7125</td><td>0.5981</td><td>0.7621</td><td>0.5345</td><td>0.6369</td><td>0.6574</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.6834</td><td>0.7042</td><td>0.5691</td><td>0.7480</td><td>0.5293</td><td>0.6228</td><td>0.6529</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.5188</td><td>0.5884</td><td>0.3697</td><td>0.5459</td><td>0.4357</td><td>0.4607</td><td>0.4722</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.4218</td><td>0.4092</td><td>0.1721</td><td>0.3521</td><td>0.4769</td><td>0.3493</td><td>0.3326</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td>0.6658</td><td>0.6068</td><td>0.6116</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.6770 0.5740 0.5818</td><td>0.5669</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.3881</td><td>0.4947</td><td>0.3127</td><td>0.2987</td><td>0.4162</td><td>0.3416</td><td>0.2958</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.6656</td><td>0.6570</td><td>0.5740</td><td>0.7491</td><td>0.5301</td><td>0.6031</td><td>0.5205</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.7676</td><td>0.7217</td><td>0.6343</td><td>0.7917</td><td>0.5474</td><td>0.6632</td><td>0.6774</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.6395</td><td>0.6696</td><td>0.5139</td><td>0.6611</td><td>0.5079</td><td>0.5698</td><td>0.5790</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">ues of the parameter are determined using En-</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">glish sentences from Reuters articles</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF6": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Pearson's correlation coefficient for sentence-level fluency.",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>No. 1</td><td>No. 2</td><td>No. 3</td><td>No. 4</td><td>No. 5</td><td>No. 6</td><td>No. 7</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5853 0.3782 0.5689</td><td>0.4673</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5739 0.5344 0.7193</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.5581</td><td>0.3407</td><td>0.5821</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.4586 0.5768 0.4852</td><td>0.6896</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.5551</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.3056 0.5925 0.4391</td><td>0.5666</td><td>0.4475</td><td>0.6756</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.4793</td><td>0.0963</td><td>0.4488</td><td>0.3033</td><td>0.4690</td><td>0.3602</td><td>0.5272</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.4139</td><td>0.0257</td><td>0.4987</td><td>0.1682</td><td>0.3923</td><td>0.2236</td><td>0.3749</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td>0.5782</td><td>0.3090</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5434 0.4680 0.5070</td><td>0.5234</td><td>0.5363</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.4050</td><td>0.1405</td><td>0.4420</td><td>0.1825</td><td>0.4259</td><td>0.2336</td><td>0.4873</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.5143</td><td>0.3031</td><td>0.5220</td><td>0.4262</td><td>0.4936</td><td>0.4405</td><td>0.6351</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.5831</td><td>0.3689</td><td>0.5753</td><td>0.3991</td><td>0.5610</td><td>0.5445</td><td>0.7186</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.5425</td><td>0.2304</td><td>0.5115</td><td>0.3770</td><td>0.5358</td><td>0.4741</td><td>0.6142</td></tr><tr><td/><td>No. 8</td><td>No. 9</td><td colspan=\"3\">No. 10 No. 11 No. 12</td><td>Avg.</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5796 0.6424 0.3241</td><td>0.5920</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.4321 0.5331 0.5574</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.5612</td><td>0.6320</td><td>0.3492</td><td>0.6034</td><td>0.4166</td><td>0.5211</td><td>0.5469</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.5414</td><td>0.6347</td><td>0.3231</td><td>0.5889</td><td>0.4127</td><td>0.5069</td><td>0.5387</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.5040</td><td>0.5521</td><td>0.2134</td><td>0.4783</td><td>0.4078</td><td>0.4033</td><td>0.4278</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.3682</td><td>0.3811</td><td>0.1682</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.3116 0.4484 0.3146</td><td>0.3142</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td>0.5526</td><td colspan=\"4\">0.5799 0.4509 0.6308 0.4124</td><td>0.5007</td><td>0.5074</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.2511</td><td>0.4153</td><td>0.1376</td><td>0.3351</td><td>0.2902</td><td>0.3122</td><td>0.2933</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.5492</td><td>0.6421</td><td>0.3962</td><td>0.6228</td><td>0.4063</td><td>0.4960</td><td>0.4478</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.5774</td><td>0.6486</td><td>0.3428</td><td>0.5975</td><td>0.4197</td><td>0.5280</td><td>0.5519</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.5660</td><td>0.6247</td><td>0.2536</td><td>0.5495</td><td>0.4550</td><td>0.4770</td><td>0.5014</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">translation systems in SMT and the scores of</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">200 output sentences obtained by 2 machine</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">translation systems in RBMT are used respec-</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">tively. However, EBMT is not included in</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF7": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for sentence-level adequacy.",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>No. 1</td><td>No. 2</td><td>No. 3</td><td>No. 4</td><td>No. 5</td><td>No. 6</td><td>No. 7</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"7\">0.7456 0.5049 0.5837 0.5146 0.6514 0.6557 0.6746</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.7336</td><td>0.4881</td><td>0.5992</td><td>0.4741</td><td>0.6382</td><td>0.5841</td><td>0.6409</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.7304</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.4822 0.6092 0.4572</td><td>0.6135</td><td>0.5365</td><td>0.6368</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.5525</td><td>0.2206</td><td>0.4327</td><td>0.3449</td><td>0.3230</td><td>0.2805</td><td>0.4375</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.5032</td><td>0.2438</td><td>0.4218</td><td>0.2489</td><td>0.2342</td><td>0.1534</td><td>0.3529</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td colspan=\"2\">0.7541 0.3829</td><td>0.5579</td><td>0.4472</td><td>0.5560</td><td>0.5828</td><td>0.6263</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.4409</td><td>0.1509</td><td>0.4018</td><td>0.2580</td><td>0.3085</td><td>0.1991</td><td>0.4115</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.6566</td><td>0.4147</td><td>0.5478</td><td>0.4272</td><td>0.5524</td><td>0.4884</td><td>0.5539</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.7478</td><td>0.4972</td><td>0.5817</td><td>0.4892</td><td>0.6437</td><td>0.6428</td><td>0.6707</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.6644</td><td>0.3926</td><td>0.5065</td><td>0.4522</td><td>0.4639</td><td>0.4715</td><td>0.5460</td></tr><tr><td/><td>No. 8</td><td>No. 9</td><td colspan=\"3\">No. 10 No. 11 No. 12</td><td>Avg.</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"7\">0.7298 0.7258 0.5961 0.7633 0.6078 0.6461 0.6763</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.6703</td><td>0.7067</td><td>0.5617</td><td>0.7411</td><td>0.5583</td><td>0.6164</td><td>0.6515</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.6603</td><td>0.6983</td><td>0.5340</td><td>0.7280</td><td>0.5281</td><td>0.6012</td><td>0.6435</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.4571</td><td>0.5827</td><td>0.3220</td><td>0.4987</td><td>0.4302</td><td>0.4069</td><td>0.4227</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.4255</td><td>0.4424</td><td>0.1313</td><td>0.2950</td><td>0.4785</td><td>0.3276</td><td>0.3062</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td>0.6863</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.6524 0.6412 0.7015</td><td>0.5728</td><td>0.5968</td><td>0.5836</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.4242</td><td>0.4776</td><td>0.3335</td><td>0.2861</td><td>0.4455</td><td>0.3448</td><td>0.2887</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.6234</td><td>0.6480</td><td>0.5463</td><td>0.7131</td><td>0.5684</td><td>0.5617</td><td>0.4797</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.7287</td><td>0.7255</td><td>0.5936</td><td>0.7761</td><td>0.5798</td><td>0.6397</td><td>0.6699</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.5850</td><td>0.6757</td><td>0.4596</td><td>0.6272</td><td>0.5452</td><td>0.5325</td><td>0.5474</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF8": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for sentence-level fluency.",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>No. 1</td><td>No. 2</td><td>No. 3</td><td>No. 4</td><td>No. 5</td><td>No. 6</td><td>No. 7</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"2\">0.5697 0.3299</td><td>0.5446</td><td>0.4199</td><td>0.5733</td><td colspan=\"2\">0.5060 0.6459</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.5481</td><td>0.3285</td><td>0.5572</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.3976 0.5960 0.4317</td><td>0.6334</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.5470</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.3041 0.5646 0.3661</td><td>0.5638</td><td>0.3879</td><td>0.6255</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.4157</td><td>0.0559</td><td>0.4286</td><td>0.2018</td><td>0.4475</td><td>0.2569</td><td>0.4909</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.4209</td><td>0.0185</td><td>0.4559</td><td>0.1093</td><td>0.3186</td><td>0.1898</td><td>0.3634</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td colspan=\"7\">0.5569 0.3461 0.5381 0.4300 0.5052 0.5264 0.5328</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.4608</td><td>0.1429</td><td>0.4438</td><td>0.1783</td><td>0.4073</td><td>0.1596</td><td>0.4821</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.4469</td><td>0.2395</td><td>0.5087</td><td>0.3292</td><td>0.4995</td><td>0.3482</td><td>0.5637</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.5659</td><td>0.3216</td><td>0.5484</td><td>0.3773</td><td>0.5638</td><td>0.5211</td><td>0.6343</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.5188</td><td>0.1534</td><td>0.4793</td><td>0.3005</td><td>0.5255</td><td>0.3942</td><td>0.5676</td></tr><tr><td/><td>No. 8</td><td>No. 9</td><td colspan=\"3\">No. 10 No. 11 No. 12</td><td>Avg.</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>Our method</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5646 0.6617 0.3319</td><td>0.6256</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.4485 0.5185 0.5556</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.5471</td><td>0.6454</td><td>0.3222</td><td>0.6319</td><td>0.4358</td><td>0.5062</td><td>0.5489</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.5246</td><td>0.6428</td><td>0.2949</td><td>0.6159</td><td>0.3928</td><td>0.4858</td><td>0.5359</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU</td><td>0.4882</td><td>0.5419</td><td>0.1407</td><td>0.4740</td><td>0.4176</td><td>0.3633</td><td>0.3971</td></tr><tr><td>NIST</td><td>0.4150</td><td>0.4193</td><td>0.0889</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.3006 0.4752 0.2980</td><td>0.2994</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td colspan=\"5\">0.5684 0.5850 0.4451 0.6502 0.4387</td><td>0.5102</td><td>0.5156</td></tr><tr><td>METEOR</td><td>0.2911</td><td>0.4267</td><td>0.1735</td><td>0.3264</td><td>0.3512</td><td>0.3158</td><td>0.2886</td></tr><tr><td>WER</td><td>0.5320</td><td>0.6505</td><td>0.3828</td><td>0.6501</td><td>0.4003</td><td>0.4626</td><td>0.4193</td></tr><tr><td>Our method II</td><td>0.5609</td><td>0.6687</td><td>0.3629</td><td>0.6223</td><td>0.4384</td><td>0.5155</td><td>0.5531</td></tr><tr><td>BLEU with our method</td><td>0.5470</td><td>0.6213</td><td>0.2184</td><td>0.5808</td><td>0.4870</td><td>0.4495</td><td>0.4825</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF9": {
"num": null,
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Correlation coefficient for SMT and RBMT.",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Pearson's correlation coefficient</td><td colspan=\"4\">Spearman's rank correlation coefficient</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Adequacy</td><td colspan=\"2\">Fluency</td><td colspan=\"2\">Adequacy</td><td colspan=\"2\">Fluency</td></tr><tr><td/><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td><td>SMT</td><td>RBMT</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">Our method 0.7054 0.5840 0.5477 0.5016 0.6710 0.5961 0.5254</td><td>0.5003</td></tr><tr><td>IMPACT</td><td>0.6721</td><td>0.5650</td><td>0.5364</td><td>0.4960</td><td>0.6397</td><td>0.5811</td><td>0.5162</td><td>0.4951</td></tr><tr><td>ROUGE-L</td><td>0.6560</td><td>0.5691</td><td>0.5179</td><td>0.4988</td><td>0.6225</td><td>0.5701</td><td>0.4942</td><td>0.4783</td></tr><tr><td>NMG-WN</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.5958 0.5850 0.5201</td><td>0.4732</td><td>0.6129</td><td>0.5755</td><td>0.5238</td><td>0.4959</td></tr></table>"
}
}
}
} |