An Optimized Approach to Translate Technical Patents from English to Japanese Using Machine Translation Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, machine learning has emerged as a tool for automated translation and has been studied relentlessly for decades. RBMT, SMT, and NMT models have been used to achieve machine translation and the results have drastically improved from when research in this field first began. Although a few general-purpose translators such as Google Translate or Microsoft Translator have accurate translations compared to that of a human translator, many pieces of text containing highly technical terms or homonyms are often mistranslated completely. When considering the necessity and importance of translating technical patents from different domains, accuracy in translation is not something that can be compromised. This motivates the need to improve the performance of machine translation further. The scope of this paper covers three open-source machine translation models for the purpose of patent documentation translation from English to Japanese, evaluates their performance on patent data, and proposes a methodology that enabled us to improve one of the model’s BLEU score by 41.22%, achieving a BLEU score of 46.18.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it