MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388496996 · doi:10.18280/ria.370503

Lexical Based Reordering Models for English to Telugu Machine Translation

2023· article· en· W4388496996 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bandi Vamsi, Ali Al Bataineh, Bhanu Prakash Doppala

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState of New Jersey Department of Education
KeywordsTeluguNatural language processingComputer scienceMachine translationTranslation (biology)Artificial intelligenceLinguisticsBiologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telugu is one of the commonly spoken regional language in India.It is mostly spoken among the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.In rural areas it is difficult for the people to understand the non-regional language specially while at the time of government works, land dealing transactions etc. Due to this there is a scope to develop a machine translation model from English to Telugu.The machine translation is an automatic technique of translating one language to another through Language Processing approach.To understand the Telugu language translation, the structural comparisons are done among English and Telugu languages to attain standard outcome.In this work, Lexical based reordering statistical model (LBRSM) is used for language conversion.This analyzes the language structure outcomes between word, phrase and hierarchical based models for the translation quality purpose.To maintain good quality translation TER and BLEU metrics 62.01 and 29.07 are considered for finding n-gram exact matches.From this work, the Phrase based reordering statistical model (PBRSM) achieved better results when compared with other system models in both training and testing phases.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207