Word Reordering and a Dynamic Programming Beam Search Algorithm for Statistical Machine Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we describe an efficient beam search algorithm for statistical machine translation based on dynamic programming (DP). The search algorithm uses the translation model presented in Brown et al. (1993). Starting from a DP-based solution to the traveling-salesman problem, we present a novel technique to restrict the possible word reorderings between source and target language in order to achieve an efficient search algorithm. Word reordering restrictions especially useful for the translation direction German to English are presented. The restrictions are generalized, and a set of four parameters to control the word reordering is introduced, which then can easily be adopted to new translation directions. The beam search procedure has been successfully tested on the Verbmobil task (German to English, 8,000-word vocabulary) and on the Canadian Hansards task (French to English, 100,000-word vocabulary). For the medium-sized Verbmobil task, a sentence can be translated in a few seconds, only a small number of search errors occur, and there is no performance degradation as measured by the word error criterion used in this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".