MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104554525 · doi:10.5539/cis.v8n1p119

Augmenting Performance of SMT Models by Deploying Fine Tokenization of the Text and Part-of-Speech Tag

2015· article· en· W2104554525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abraham Tesso Nedjo, Degen Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine translationNatural language processingLexical analysisArtificial intelligencePhraseWord (group theory)Language modelSet (abstract data type)Translation (biology)Speech recognitionLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents our study of exploiting the languages’ word class information augmented with some rule-based processing for phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation (SMT). In statistical machine translation, estimating word-to-word alignment probabilities for the translation model can be difficult due to the problem of sparse data: most words in a given corpus occur at most a handful of times. With a highly inflected language such as Oromo, this problem can be particularly severe. In addition, there is variant nature or use of different symbols for ‘hudhaa’ (the diacritical marker) in Oromo language which intrudes another severe data sparsity problem. In this work, we show that using fine tokenization of words considering intra-word behavior of words consisting hudhaa, and POS tag to modify the Oromo input and see how it improves Oromo-English machine translation system. The models were trained on a very small parallel corpus of data set (usually unacceptable for normal SMT system) and also the quality of the parallel corpus both in translation and spelling errors were not so good. Yet, our final system achieves a BLEU score of 2.88, as compared to 2.56 for the baseline system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207