MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W117861810

Using monolingual source-language data to improve MT performance.

2006· article· en· W117861810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicola Ueffing

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingMachine translationArtificial intelligencePhraseTranslation (biology)Focus (optics)Task (project management)Domain (mathematical analysis)Example-based machine translationTraining setSource text
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical machine translation systems are usually trained on large amounts of bilingual text and of monolingual text in the target language. In this paper, we will present a self-training approach, which additionally explores the use of monolingual source text, namely the documents to be translated, to improve the system performance. An initial version of the translation system is used to translate the source text. Among the generated translations, target sentences of low quality are automatically identified and discarded. The reliable translations together with their sources are then used as a new bilingual corpus for training an additional phrase translation model. Thus, the translation system can be adapted to the new source data even if no bilingual data in this domain is available. Experimental evaluation was performed on a standard ChineseEnglish translation task. We focus on settings where the domain and/or the style of the test data is different from that of the training material. We will show a significant improvement in translation quality through the use of the adaptive phrase translation model. BLEU score rises up to 1.1 points, and mWER is reduced by up to 3.1% absolute.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207