1 / 22

A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine Translation Author: David Chiang

A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine Translation Author: David Chiang. Presented by Achim Ruopp Formulas/illustrations/numbers extracted from referenced papers. Outline. Phrase Order in Phrase-based Statistical MT Using synchronous CFGs to solve the issue

milek
Download Presentation

A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine Translation Author: David Chiang

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine TranslationAuthor: David Chiang Presented by Achim Ruopp Formulas/illustrations/numbers extracted from referenced papers

  2. Outline • Phrase Order in Phrase-based Statistical MT • Using synchronous CFGs to solve the issue • Integrating the idea into an SMT system • Results • Conclusions • Future work • My Thoughts/Questions

  3. Phrase Order in Phrase-based Statistical MT • Example from [Chiang2005]:

  4. Phrase Order in Phrase-based Statistical MT • Translation of the example with a phrase-based SMT system (Pharao, [Koehn2004]) [Aozhou] [shi] [yu] [Bei Han] [you] [bangjiao]1[de shaoshu guojia zhiyi] [Australia] [is] [dipl. rels.]1 [with] [North Korea] [is] [one of the few countries] • Uses learned phrase translations • Accomplishes local phrase-reordering • Fails on overall reordering of phrases • Not only applicable to Chinese, but also Japanese (SOV order), German (scrambling)

  5. Idea: Rules for Subphrases • Motivation “phrases are good for learning reorderings of words, we can use them to learn reorderings of phrases as well” • Rules with “placeholders” for subphrases • <yu [1] you [2], have [2] with [1]> • Learned automatically from bitext without syntactical annotation • Formally syntax-based but not linguistically syntax-based • “the result sometimes resembles a syntactician’s grammar but often does not”

  6. Synchronous CFGs • Developed in the 60’s for programming-language compilation [Aho1969] • Separate tutorial by Chiang describing them [Chiang2005b] • In NLP synchronous CFGs have been used for • Machine translation • Semantic interpretation

  7. Synchronous CFGs • Like CFGs, but production have two right hand sides • Source side • Target side • Related through linked non-terminal symbols • E.g. VP → <V[1] NP[2],NP[2] V[1]> • One-to-one correspondence • Non-terminal of type X is always linked to same type • Productions applied in parallel to both sides to linked non-terminals

  8. Synchronous CFGs

  9. Synchronous CFGs • Limitations • No Chomsky normal form • Has implications for complexity of decoder • Only limited closure under composition • Sister-reordering only

  10. Model • Using the log-linear model [Och2002] • Presented by Bill last week

  11. Model – Rule Features • P(γ|α) and P(α|γ) • Lexical weights Pw(γ|α) and Pw(α|γ) • Estimation how we words in α translate to words in γ • Phrase penalty exp(1) • Allows model to learn longer/shorter derivations • Exception: glue rule weights • w(S → <X[1],X[1] >) =1 • w(S → <S[1]X[2],S[1]X[2]>) = exp(-λg) • Λg controls model’s preference for hierarchical phrases over serial phrase combination

  12. Model – Additional Features • Separated out from rule weights • Notational convenience • Conceptually cleaner (necessary for polynominal-time decoding) • Derivation D • Set of triples <r,i,j>: apply grammar rule r for rewriting a non-terminal in span f(D) from i to j • Ambiguous

  13. Training • Training is starting from a symetrical, word-aligned corpus • Adopted from [Och2004] and [Koehn2003] • How to get from a one-directional alignment to a symetrical alignment • How to find initial phrase pairs • alternative would be Marcu & Wong 2002 that Ping presented [Marcu2002]

  14. Training

  15. Training • Scheme leads unfortunately • To a large number of rules • With false ambiguity • Grammar is filtered to • Balance grammar size and performance • Five filter criteria e.g. • produce only two non-terminals • Initial phrase length limited to 10

  16. Decoding • Our good old friend - the CKY parser • Enhanced with • Beam search • Postprocessor to map French derivations to English derivations

  17. Results • Baseline • Pharao [Koehn2003], [Koehn2004] • Minimum error rate training on BLEU measure • Hierarchical model • 2.2 Million rules after filtering down from 24 Million • 7.5% relative improvement • Additional constituent feature • Additional feature favoring syntactic parses • Trained on 250k sentences Penn Chinese Treebank • Improved accuracy only in development set

  18. Learned Feature Weights • Word = word penalty • Phr = phrase penalty (pp) • λg penalizes glue rules much less than λpp does regular rules • i.e. “This suggests that the model will prefer serial combination of phrases, unless some other factor supports the use of hierarchical phrases ”

  19. Conclusions • Hierarchical phrase pairs that can be learned data without syntactically annotation • Hierarchical phrase pairs improve translation accuracy significantly • Added syntactic information (constituent feature did not provide statistically significant gain

  20. Future Work • Move to more syntactically motivated grammar • Reducing grammar size to allow more aggressive training settings

  21. My Thoughts/Questions • Really interesting approach to bring “syntactic” information into SMT • Example sentence was not translated correctly • Missing words are problematic • Can phrase reordering be also learned by lexicalized phrase reordering models [Och2004]? • Why did constituent feature only improve accuracy in development set, but not in test set? • Does data sparseness influence the learned feature weights? • What syntactical features are already built into Pharao?

  22. References • [Aho1969] Aho, A. V. and J. D. Ullman. 1969. Syntax directed translations and the pushdown assembler. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 3:37–56. • [Chiang2005]: Chiang, David. 2005. A Hierarchical Phrase-Based Model for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of ACL 2005, pages 263–270. • [Chiang2005b]: http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~resnik/ling645_fa2005/notes/synchcfg.pdf • [Koehn2003]: Koehn, Philipp. 2003. Noun Phrase Translation. Ph.D. • thesis, University of Southern California. • [Koehn2004]: Koehn, Phillip. 2004. Pharaoh: a beam search decoder for phrase-based statistical machine translation models. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 115–124. • [Marcu2002]: Marcu, Daniel and William Wong. 2002. A phrasebased, joint probability model for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on • Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 133–139. • [Och 2002]: Och, Franz Josef and Hermann Ney. 2002. Discriminative training and maximum entropy models for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 295–302. • [Och2004]: Och, Franz Josef, Hermann Ney. 2004. The alignment template approach to statistical machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 30:417–449.

More Related