Top-down Tree Structured Decoding with Syntactic Connections for Neural Machine Translation and Parsing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The addition of syntax-aware decoding in Neural Machine Translation (NMT) systems requires an effective tree-structured neural network, a syntax-aware attention model and a language generation model that is sensitive to sentence structure. We exploit a top-down tree-structured model called DRNN (Doubly-Recurrent Neural Networks) first proposed by Alvarez-Melis and Jaakola (2017) to create an NMT model called Seq2DRNN that combines a sequential encoder with tree-structured decoding augmented with a syntax-aware attention model. Unlike previous approaches to syntax-based NMT which use dependency parsing models our method uses constituency parsing which we argue provides useful information for translation. In addition, we use the syntactic structure of the sentence to add new connections to the tree-structured decoder neural network (Seq2DRNN+SynC). We compare our NMT model with sequential and state of the art syntax-based NMT models and show that our model produces more fluent translations with better reordering. Since our model is capable of doing translation and constituency parsing at the same time we also compare our parsing accuracy against other neural parsing models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".