MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173162544 · doi:10.1145/3567592

Neural Machine Translation for Low-resource Languages: A Survey

2022· review· en· W3173162544 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine translationUnavailabilityResource (disambiguation)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has seen tremendous growth in the last ten years since the early 2000s and has already entered a mature phase. While considered the most widely used solution for Machine Translation, its performance on low-resource language pairs remains sub-optimal compared to the high-resource counterparts due to the unavailability of large parallel corpora. Therefore, the implementation of NMT techniques for low-resource language pairs has been receiving the spotlight recently, thus leading to substantial research on this topic. This article presents a detailed survey of research advancements in low-resource language NMT (LRL-NMT) and quantitative analysis to identify the most popular techniques. We provide guidelines to select the possible NMT technique for a given LRL data setting based on our findings. We also present a holistic view of the LRL-NMT research landscape and provide recommendations to enhance the research efforts further.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.281 · 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