Framework for Handling Rare Word Problems in Neural Machine Translation System Using Multi-Word Expressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine Translation (MT) systems are now being improved with the use of an ongoing methodology known as Neural Machine Translation (NMT). Natural language processing (NLP) researchers have shown that NMT systems are unable to deal with out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words and multi-word expressions (MWEs) in the text. OOV terms are those that are not currently included in the vocabulary that is used by the NMT system. MWEs are phrases that consist of a minimum of two terms but are treated as a single unit. MWEs have great importance in NLP, linguistic theory, and MT systems. In this article, OOV words and MWEs are handled for the Punjabi to English NMT system. A parallel corpus for Punjabi to English containing MWEs was developed and used to train the different models of NMT. Punjabi is a low-resource language as it lacks the availability of a large parallel corpus for building various NLP tools, and this is an attempt to improve the accuracy of Punjabi in the English NMT system by using named entities and MWEs in the corpus. The developed NMT models were assessed using human evaluation through adequacy, fluency and overall rating as well as automated assessment tools such as the bilingual evaluation study (BLEU) and translation error rate (TER) score. Results show that using word embedding (WE) and MWEs corpus increased the accuracy of translation for the Punjabi to English language pair. The best BLEU score obtained was 15.45 for the small test set, 43.32 for the medium test set, and 34.5 for the large test set, respectively. The best TER rate score obtained was 57.34% for the small test set, 37.29% for the medium test set, and 53.79% for the large test set, repectively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".