A Comparison of Methods for Identifying the Translation of Words in a Comparable Corpus: Recipes and Limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying translations in comparable corpora is a challenge that has attracted many researchers since a long time. It has applications in several applications including Machine Translation and Cross-lingual Information Retrieval. In this study we compare three state-of-the-art approaches for these tasks: the so-called context-based projection method, the projection of monolingual word embeddings, as well as a method dedicated to identify translations of rare words. We carefully explore the hyper-parameters of each method and measure their impact on the task of identifying the translation of English words in Wikipedia into French. Contrary to the standard practice, we designed a test case where we do not resort to heuristics in order to pre-select the target vocabulary among which to find translations, therefore pushing each method to its limit. We show that all the approaches we tested have a clear bias toward frequent words. In fact, the best approach we tested could identify the translation of a third of a set of frequent test words, while it could only translate around 10% of rare words.
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 | 0.024 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".