File size: 73,309 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 |
{
"paper_id": "I05-1041",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:25:30.294827Z"
},
"title": "Improving Statistical Word Alignment with Ensemble Methods",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "wuhua@rdc.toshiba.com.cn"
},
{
"first": "Haifeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "wanghaifeng@rdc.toshiba.com.cn"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper proposes an approach to improve statistical word alignment with ensemble methods. Two ensemble methods are investigated: bagging and cross-validation committees. On these two methods, both weighted voting and unweighted voting are compared under the word alignment task. In addition, we analyze the effect of different sizes of training sets on the bagging method. Experimental results indicate that both bagging and cross-validation committees improve the word alignment results regardless of weighted voting or unweighted voting. Weighted voting performs consistently better than unweighted voting on different sizes of training sets.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "I05-1041",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper proposes an approach to improve statistical word alignment with ensemble methods. Two ensemble methods are investigated: bagging and cross-validation committees. On these two methods, both weighted voting and unweighted voting are compared under the word alignment task. In addition, we analyze the effect of different sizes of training sets on the bagging method. Experimental results indicate that both bagging and cross-validation committees improve the word alignment results regardless of weighted voting or unweighted voting. Weighted voting performs consistently better than unweighted voting on different sizes of training sets.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Bilingual word alignment is first introduced as an intermediate result in statistical machine translation (SMT) [3] . Besides being used in SMT, it is also used in translation lexicon building [9] , transfer rule learning [10] , example-based machine translation [14] , etc. In previous alignment methods, some researchers employed statistical word alignment models to build alignment links [3] , [4] , [8] , [11] , [16] . Some researchers used similarity and association measures to build alignment links [1] , [15] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 115,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 196,
"text": "[9]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 226,
"text": "[10]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 267,
"text": "[14]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 394,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 400,
"text": "[4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 406,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 413,
"text": "[11]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 420,
"text": "[16]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 509,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 516,
"text": "[15]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "One issue about word alignment is how to improve the performance of a word aligner when the training data are fixed. One possible solution is to use ensemble methods [5] , [6] . The ensemble methods were proposed to improve the performance of classifiers. An ensemble of classifiers is a set of classifiers whose individual decisions are combined in some way (weighted or unweighted voting) to classify new examples. Many methods for constructing ensembles have been developed [5] . One kind of methods is to resample the training examples. These methods include bagging [2] , cross-validation committees [12] and boosting [7] . The two former methods generate the classifiers in parallel while boosting generates the classifiers sequentially. In addition, boosting changes the weights of the training instance that is provided as input to each inducer based on the previously built classifiers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 169,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 175,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 480,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 574,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 609,
"text": "[12]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 626,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we propose an approach to improve word alignment with ensemble methods. Although word alignment is not a classification problem, we can still build different word aligners by resampling the training data. If these aligners perform accurately and diversely on the corpus [6] , they can be employed to improve the word alignment results. Here, we investigate two ensemble methods: bagging and cross-validation committees. For both of the ensemble methods, we employ weighted and unweighted voting to build different ensembles. Experimental results indicate that both bagging and cross-validation committees improve the word alignment results. The weighted ensembles perform much better than the unweighted ensembles according to our word alignment results. In addition, we analyze the effect of different sizes of training data on the bagging algorithm. Experimental results also show that the weighted bagging ensembles perform consistently better than the unweighted bagging ensembles on different sizes of training sets.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 288,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes statistical word alignment. Section 3 describes the bagging algorithm. Section 4 describes the cross-validation committees. Section 5 describes how to calculate the weights used for voting. Section 6 presents the evaluation results. Section 7 discusses why the ensemble methods used in this paper are effective for the word alignment task. The last section concludes this paper and presents the future work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we use the IBM model 4 as our statistical word alignment model [3] . This model only allows word to word and multi-word to word alignments. Thus, some multi-word units cannot be correctly aligned. In order to tackle this problem, we perform word alignment in two directions (source to target and target to source) as described in [11] . In this paper, we call these two aligners bi-directional aligners. 1 Thus, for each sentence pair, we can get two alignment results. We use 1 S and 2 S to represent the bi-directional alignment sets. For alignment links in both sets, we use i for source words and j for target words.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 81,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 349,
"text": "[11]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 420,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Statistical Word Alignment",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "}} 0 , | { | ) , {( 1 \u2265 = = = j j j j a a i i A j A S (1) }} 0 , | { | ) , {( 2 \u2265 = = = j j i i a i a j A A i S (2)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Statistical Word Alignment",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Where, a j represents the index position of the source word aligned to the target word in position j. For example, if a target word in position j is connected to a source word in position i, then a j =i. If a target word in position j is connected to source words in positions i 1 and i 2 , then A j ={i 1 ,i 2 }. We name an element in the alignment set an alignment link. 2 ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 373,
"end": 374,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Statistical Word Alignment",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The bagging algorithm (derived from bootstrap aggregating) votes classifiers generated by different bootstrap replicates [2] . A bootstrap replicate is generated by uniformly sampling m instances from the training set with replacement. In general, T bootstrap replicates are built in the sampling process. And T different classifiers are built based on the bootstrap replicates. A final classifier is built from these T subclassifiers using weighted voting or unweighted voting. The original unweighted bagging algorithm is shown in Figure 1 . ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 124,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 533,
"end": 541,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Input: a training set }} ..., , 1 { ), , {( m i x y S i i \u2208 = an induction algorithm \u03a8 (1) For T j to 1 = { (2) j S =",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "\u2211 \u2208 = j j Y y y x C x C ) ), ( ( max arg ) ( * \u03b4 Where, 1 ) , ( = y x \u03b4 if y x = ; else 0 ) , ( = y x \u03b4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": ".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Output: Classifier * C Fig. 1 . The Unweighted Bagging Algorithm",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 29,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we apply the technique of bagging to word alignment, the detailed algorithm is shown in Figure 2 . In the algorithm, we first resample the training data to train the word aligners. We choose to resample the training set in the same way as the original bagging algorithm. With these different bootstrap replicates, we build the different word aligners. As described in Section 2, we perform word alignment in two directions to improve multiword alignment. Thus, on each bootstrap replicate, we train a word aligner in the source to target direction and another word aligner in the target to source direction, which is described in b) of step (1) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 658,
"end": 661,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 113,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "After building the different word aligners, we combine or aggregate the alignments generated by the individual alignment models to create the final alignments for each sentence pair. In this paper, the final alignment link for each word is chosen by performing a majority voting on the alignments provided by each instance of the model. The majority voting can be weighted or unweighted. For weighted voting, the weights of word alignment links produced by the bi-directional word aligners are trained from the training data, which will be further described in section 5. For unweighted voting, the best alignment link for a specific word or unit is voted by more than half of the word aligners in the ensemble. For those words that have no majority choice, the system simply does not align them. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Input: a training set }} ... 1 { ), , {( m i x y S i i \u2208 = a word alignment model M (1) For",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2211 + = j ts j st j j t t k s M t k s M t s W k s M )) ), , ( ( ) ), , ( ( ( * ) , ( max arg ) , ( * \u03b4 \u03b4 t is",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2211 = > + = T j ts j st j T t n t t k s M t k s M k s M 1 2 ) ( : * )) ), , ( ( ) ), , ( ( ( max arg ) , ( \u03b4 \u03b4 where, n(t)= \u2211 = + T j ts j st j t k s M t k s M 1 )) ), , ( ( ) ), , ( ( ( \u03b4 \u03b4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Output: The final word alignment results",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging the Statistical Word Aligner",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The difference between bagging and cross-validation committees lies in the way to resample the training set. The cross-validation committees construct the training sets by leaving out disjoint subsets of the training data. For example, the training set can be randomly and evenly divided into N disjoint subsets. Then N overlapping training sets can be constructed by dropping out a different one of these N subsets. This procedure is the same as the one to construct training sets for N-fold cross-validation. Thus, ensembles constructed in this way are called cross-validation committees.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Fig. 2. The Bagging Algorithm for Word Alignment 4 Cross-Validation Committee",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For word alignment, we also divide the training set into N even parts and build N overlapping training sets. With the N sets, we build N alignment models as described above. Since the training sets are different, the word alignment results may be different for individual words. Using the same majority voting as described in Figure 2 , we get the final word alignment results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 326,
"end": 334,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Fig. 2. The Bagging Algorithm for Word Alignment 4 Cross-Validation Committee",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we compare both weighted voting and unweighted voting under our word alignment task. The algorithm in Figure 2 shows that the weights are related with the specific word alignment links and the specific word aligner. We calculate the weights based on the word alignment results on the training data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 125,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Weight Calculation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "As described in Section 3. (3) . This weight measures the association of the source part and the target part in an alignment link. This measure is like the Dice Coefficient. Smadja et al. [13] showed that the Dice Coefficient is a good indicator of translation association. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 30,
"text": "(3)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 192,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Weight Calculation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "+ = ' ' ) , ' ( ) ' , ( ) , ( * 2 ) , ( s t i t s count t s count t s count t s W (3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2211 \u2211",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We perform experiments on a sentence aligned English-Chinese bilingual corpus in general domain. There are about 320,000 bilingual sentence pairs in the corpus, from which, we randomly select 1,000 sentence pairs as testing data. The remainder is used as training data. In the sentence pairs, the average length of the English sentences is 13.6 words while the average length of the Chinese sentences is 14.2 words.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Testing Set",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "The Chinese sentences in both the training set and the testing set are automatically segmented into words. The segmentation errors in the testing set are post-corrected. The testing set is manually annotated. It has totally 8,651 alignment links. Among them, 866 alignment links include multiword units, which accounts for about 10% of the total links.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Testing Set",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "We use the same evaluation metrics as in [17] . If we use G S to represent the set of alignment links identified by the proposed methods and R S to denote the reference alignment set, the methods to calculate the precision, recall, f-measure, and alignment error rate (AER) are shown in Equation 4, (5) , (6) , and (7). In addition, t-test is used for testing statistical significance. From the evaluation metrics, it can be seen that the higher the f-measure is, the lower the alignment error rate is. Thus, we will only show precision, recall and AER scores in the experimental results.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 45,
"text": "[17]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 302,
"text": "(5)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 308,
"text": "(6)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "| S | | S S | G R G \u2229 = precision (4) | S | | S S | R R G \u2229 = recall (5) | | | | | | * 2 R G R G S S S S fmeasure + \u2229 = (6) fmeasure S S S S AER R G R G \u2212 = + \u2229 \u2212 = 1 | | | | | | * 2 1 (7)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "For the bagging method, we use ten word aligners trained on five different bootstrap replicates. Among them, five aligners are trained in the source to target direction. The other five aligners are trained in the target to source direction. The bagging method will be compared with a baseline method using the entire training data. For this baseline method, we also train bi-directional models. Based on the alignment results on the entire training data, we calculate the alignment weights for the two word aligners as described in Section 5.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Bagging",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "The results using weighted voting are shown in Table 1 . The number in brackets of the first column describes the number of word aligners used in the ensembles. For example, in the ensemble \"bagging (4)\", two word aligners are trained in the source to target direction and the other two are trained in the target to source direction.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 54,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Bagging",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "From the results, it can be seen that the bagging methods obtain significantly better results than the baseline. The best ensemble achieves an error rate reduction of 7.34% as compared with the baseline. The results show that increasing the number of word aligner does not greatly reduce the word alignment error rate. The reduction is even smaller when the number increases from 8 to 10. In order to further analyze the effect of the weights on the word alignment results, we also use unweighted voting in the ensembles. The results are shown in Table 2 . The baseline method also trains bi-directional aligners with the entire training data. The final word alignment results are obtained by taking an unweighted voting on the two alignment results produced by the bi-directional aligners. That is the same as that by taking the intersection of the two word alignment results. Increasing the number of word aligners in the ensembles, the unweighted bagging method does not greatly reduce AER. However, the ensembles obtain much lower error rate as compared with the baseline. The best ensemble achieves a relative error rate reduction of 10.64%, indicating a significant improvement. From the experimental results, we find that there are no multiword alignment links selected in the ensembles. This is because unweighted voting in this paper requires more than half of the word aligners in the ensembles to vote for the same link. Thus, there should be bidirectional word aligners voting for the target alignment link. The intersection of bidirectional word alignment results produced by the IBM models only creates single word alignments. It can also be seen from the Equations (1) and (2) in Section 2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 547,
"end": 554,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Bagging",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "Comparing the results obtained using weighted voting in Table 1 and those obtained using unweighted voting in Table 2 , we find that (1) the weighted bagging methods are much better than the unweighted bagging methods; (2) the ensembles using unweighted voting obtain higher precision but lower recall than those using weighted voting. For example, the weighted voting \"bagging (10)\" achieves a relative error rate reduction of 20.59% as compared with the corresponding unweighted voting. This indicates that the method used to calculate voting weights described in section 5 is very effective.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 63,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Bagging",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "For the cross-validation committees, we divide the entire training data into five disjoint subsets. For each bootstrap replicate, we leave one out. Thus, each replicate includes 80% sentence pairs of the full training data. For each replicate, we train bidirectional word alignment models. Thus, we totally obtain ten individual word aligners. The baseline is the same as shown in Table 1 . The results obtained using weighted voting are shown in Table 3 . The number in the brackets of the first column describes the number of word aligners used in the ensembles. From the results, it can be seen that the cross-validation committees perform better than the baseline. The best ensemble \"validation (10)\" achieves an error rate reduction of 7.39% as compared with the baseline, indicating a significant improvement. The results also show that increasing the number of word aligner does not greatly reduce the word alignment error rate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 381,
"end": 388,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 454,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Cross-Validation Committees",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "As described in section 6.3, we also use unweighted voting for the cross-validation committees. The results are shown in Table 4 . The baseline is the same as described in Table 2 . From the results, it can be seen that increasing the number of word aligners in the ensembles, the alignment error rate is reduced. The best ensemble achieves a relative error rate reduction of 8.04% as compared with the baseline, indicating a significant improvement. Comparing the results in Table 3 and Table 4 , we find that the weighted methods are also much better than the unweighted ones. For example, the weighted method \"Validation (10)\" achieves an error rate reduction of 22.87% as compared with the corresponding unweighted method.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 128,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 179,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 483,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 495,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Results for Cross-Validation Committees",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "According to the evaluation results, bagging and cross-validation committees achieve comparable results. In order to further compare bagging and cross-validation committees, we classify the alignment links in the weighted ensembles into two classes: single word alignment links (SWA) and multiword alignment links (MWA). SWA links only include one-to-one alignments. MWA links refer to those including multiword units in the source language or/and in the target language. The SWA and MWA for the bagging ensembles are shown in Table 5 and Table 6 . The SWA and MWA for the cross-validation committees are shown in Table 7 and Table 8 . The AERs of the baselines for SWA and MWA are 0.1531 and 0.8469, respectively. From the results, it can be seen that the single word alignment results are much better than the multiword alignment results for both of the two methods. This indicates that it is more difficult to align the multiword units than to align single words.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 527,
"end": 546,
"text": "Table 5 and Table 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 621,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 633,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging vs. Cross-Validation Committees",
"sec_num": "6.5"
},
{
"text": "Comparing the bagging methods and validation committees, we find that these two methods obtain comparable results on both the single word alignment links and multiword alignment links. This indicates that the different resampling methods in these two ensemble methods do not much affect the results on our word alignment task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bagging vs. Cross-Validation Committees",
"sec_num": "6.5"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we investigate the effect of the size of training data on the ensemble methods. Since the difference between bagging and cross-validation committees is very small, we only investigate the effect on the bagging ensembles.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Different Sizes of Training Data",
"sec_num": "6.6"
},
{
"text": "We randomly select training data from the original training set described in Section 6.1 to construct different training sets. We construct three training sets, which include 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of sentence pairs of the original training set, respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Different Sizes of Training Data",
"sec_num": "6.6"
},
{
"text": "For each of the training set, we obtain five bootstrap replicates and train ten word aligners. The results of ensembles consisting of ten word aligners are shown in Table 9 and Table 10 . Table 9 and Table 10 show the weighted and unweighted bagging results, respectively. The methods to construct the baselines for different training sets in Table 9 and Table 10 are the same as those in Table 1 and Table 2 , respectively. For convenience, we also list the results using the original training set in the tables. The first column describes the size of the training sets used for the ensembles. The last column presents the relative error rate reduction (RERR) of the ensembles as compared with the corresponding baselines. From the results, it can be seen that both weighted and unweighted bagging ensembles are effective to improve word alignment results. The weighted ensembles perform consistently better than the unweigted ensembles on different sizes of training sets. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 173,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 186,
"text": "Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 209,
"text": "Table 9 and Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 364,
"text": "Table 9 and Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 409,
"text": "Table 1 and Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Different Sizes of Training Data",
"sec_num": "6.6"
},
{
"text": "Both bagging and cross-validation committees utilize multiple classifiers to make different assumptions about the learning system. Bagging requires that the learning system should not be stable, so that small changes to the training set would lead to different classifiers. Breiman [2] also noted that poor predicators could be transformed into worse ones by bagging. In this paper, the learning system is the word alignment model described in Section 2. The classifiers refer to the different word aligners trained on different bootstrap replicates. In our experiments, although word alignment models do not belong to unstable learning systems, bagging obtains better results on all of the datasets. This is because the training data is insufficient or subject to data sparseness problem. Thus, changing the training data or resampling the training data causes the alternation of the trained parameters of the alignment model. The word aligners trained on a different bootstrap replicate produce different word alignment links for individual words. Using majority voting, the ensembles can improve the alignment precision and recall, resulting in lower alignment error rates.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 282,
"end": 285,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The experiments also show that weighted voting is better than unweighted voting. The advantage of weighted voting is that it can select the good word alignment link even if only one aligner votes for it in the ensembles. This is because the selected alignment link gets much higher weight than the other links.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Two ensemble methods are employed in this paper to improve word alignment results: bagging and cross-validation committees. Both of these two methods obtain better results than the original word aligner without increasing any training data. In this paper, we use two different voting methods: weighted voting and unweighted voting. Experimental results show that the weighted bagging method and weighted cross-validation committees achieve an error rate reduction of 7.34% and 7.39% respectively, as compared with the original word aligner. Results also show that weighted voting is much better than unweighted voting on the word alignment task. Unweighted voting obtains higher precision but lower recall than weighted voting. In addition, the weighted voting used in this paper obtains multiword alignment links while the unweighted voting cannot.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "We also compare the two ensemble methods on the same training data and testing data. Bagging and cross-validation committees obtain comparable results on both single word alignment links and multiword alignment links. This indicates that the different resampling methods in these two ensemble methods do not much affect the results under our word alignment task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "We also investigate the bagging method on different sizes of training sets. The results show that both weighted voting and unweighted voting are effective to improve word alignment results. Weighted voting performs consistently better than unweigted voting on different sizes of training sets.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "In future work, we will investigate more ensemble methods on the word alignment task such as the boosting algorithm. In addition, we will do more research on the weighting schemes in voting.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "The GIZA++ toolkit is used to perform statistical alignment. It is located at http://www.fjoch.com/GIZA++.html.2 Our definition of alignment link is different from that in[11]. In[11], alignment links are classified into possible links and sure links. In our paper, both one-to-one and non one-to-one links are taken as sure links.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A Simple Hybrid Aligner for Generating Lexical Correspondences in Parallel Texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ahrenberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Merkel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andersson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 36 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17 th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (ACL/COLING-1998)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "29--35",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ahrenberg, L., Merkel, M., Andersson, M.: A Simple Hybrid Aligner for Generating Lexi- cal Correspondences in Parallel Texts. In Proc. of the 36 th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics and the 17 th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (ACL/COLING-1998), 29-35",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Bagging Predicators",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Breiman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Machine Learning",
"volume": "24",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "123--140",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Breiman, L.: Bagging Predicators. Machine Learning (1996), 24(1): 123-140",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation. Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Brown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Pietra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Pietra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mercer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "263--311",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brown, P. F., Pietra, S. D., Pietra, V. D., Mercer, R.: The Mathematics of Statistical Ma- chine Translation: Parameter Estimation. Computational Linguistics (1993), 19(2): 263-311",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "A Probability Model to Improve Word Alignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cherry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 41 st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2003)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "88--95",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cherry, C., Lin, D.: A Probability Model to Improve Word Alignment. In Proc. of the 41 st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2003), pp. 88-95",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Machine Learning Research: Four Current Directions. AI Magazine (1997)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dietterich",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "97--136",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dietterich, T.: Machine Learning Research: Four Current Directions. AI Magazine (1997), 18 (4): 97-136",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dietterich",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--15",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dietterich, T.: Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning. In Proc. of the First Int. Work- shop on Multiple Classifier Systems (2000), 1-15",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Experiments with a new boosting algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Freund",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schapire",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Machine Learning: Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "148--156",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Freund, Y., Schapire, R.: Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Machine Learn- ing: Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conference (1996), 148-156",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Symmetric Word Alignments for Statistical Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matusov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zens",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 20 th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "219--225",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matusov, E., Zens, R., Ney H.: Symmetric Word Alignments for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proc. of the 20 th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004), 219-225",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Automatic Construction of Clean Broad-Coverage Translation Lexicons",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Melamed",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 2 nd Conf. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-1996)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "125--134",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Melamed, I. D.: Automatic Construction of Clean Broad-Coverage Translation Lexicons. In Proc. of the 2 nd Conf. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-1996), 125-134",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "A Best-first Alignment Algorithm for Automatic Extraction of Transfer Mappings from Bilingual Corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Menezes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Richardson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. of the ACL 2001 Workshop on Data-Driven Methods in Machine Translation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "39--46",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Menezes, A., Richardson, S.D.: A Best-first Alignment Algorithm for Automatic Extrac- tion of Transfer Mappings from Bilingual Corpora. In Proc. of the ACL 2001 Workshop on Data-Driven Methods in Machine Translation (2001), 39-46",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Improved Statistical Alignment Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Och",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 38 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2000)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "440--447",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Och, F. J., Ney, H.: Improved Statistical Alignment Models. In Proc. of the 38 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2000), 440-447",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Improving Committee Diagnosis with Resampling Techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Parmanto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Munro",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Doyle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "",
"pages": "882--888",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Parmanto, B., Munro, P., Doyle, H.: Improving Committee Diagnosis with Resampling Techniques. In Touretzky, D., Mozer, M., Hasselmo, M. (Ed..): Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems (1996), Vol. 8, 882-888",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Translating Collocations for Bilingual Lexicons: a Statistical Approach. Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Smadja",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hatzivassiloglou",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--38",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Smadja, F. A., McKeown, K. R., Hatzivassiloglou, V.: Translating Collocations for Bilingual Lexicons: a Statistical Approach. Computational Linguistics (1996), 22 (1):1-38",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Review Article: Example-Based Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Somers",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Machine Translation",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "",
"pages": "113--157",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Somers, H.: Review Article: Example-Based Machine Translation. Machine Translation (1999), 14: 113-157",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Lexical Token Alignment: Experiments, Results and Application",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tufis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barbu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 3 rd Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "458--465",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tufis, D., Barbu, M.: Lexical Token Alignment: Experiments, Results and Application. In Proc. of the 3 rd Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2002), 458-465",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Stochastic Inversion Transduction Grammars and Bilingual Parsing of Parallel Corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "23",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "377--403",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wu, D.: Stochastic Inversion Transduction Grammars and Bilingual Parsing of Parallel Corpora. Computational Linguistics (1997), 23(3): 377-403",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Improving Domain-Specific Word Alignment with a General Bilingual Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Machine Translation: From Real Users to Research: 6 th Conf. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "262--271",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wu, H., Wang, H.: Improving Domain-Specific Word Alignment with a General Bilingual Corpus. In Frederking R., Taylor, K. (Eds.): Machine Translation: From Real Users to Re- search: 6 th Conf. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA- 2004), 262-271",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "replicate of S by sampling m items from S with replacement b) Train the bi-directional alignment models the number of sentence pairs) For each word s : a) For weighted voting",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "the word or phrase in the target sentence;",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">st j M in the source to target direction and a word aligner ts j M in the target to source</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">direction. That is to say, we obtain two different word alignment sets st j S and ts j S for</td></tr><tr><td>each of the bootstrap replicate. For each word alignment link</td><td>, ( t s</td><td>)</td><td>produced by st j M</td></tr><tr><td>or ts</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"text": "1, on each bootstrap replicate j, we train a word aligner"
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (4)</td><td>0.8035</td><td>0.7898</td><td>0.2034</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (6)</td><td>0.8048</td><td>0.7922</td><td>0.2015</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (8)</td><td>0.8061</td><td>0.7948</td><td>0.1996</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (10)</td><td>0.8064</td><td>0.7948</td><td>0.1994</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td>0.7870</td><td>0.7826</td><td>0.2152</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Weighted Bagging Results"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (4)</td><td>0.9230</td><td>0.6073</td><td>0.2674</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (6)</td><td>0.9181</td><td>0.6200</td><td>0.2598</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (8)</td><td>0.9167</td><td>0.6307</td><td>0.2527</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (10)</td><td>0.9132</td><td>0.6347</td><td>0.2511</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td>0.9294</td><td>0.5756</td><td>0.2810</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Unweighted Bagging Results"
},
"TABREF4": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (4)</td><td>0.8059</td><td>0.7913</td><td>0.2015</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (6)</td><td>0.8070</td><td>0.7928</td><td>0.2002</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (8)</td><td>0.8063</td><td>0.7933</td><td>0.2002</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (10)</td><td>0.8068</td><td>0.7947</td><td>0.1993</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td>0.7870</td><td>0.7826</td><td>0.2152</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Evaluation Results for Weighted Cross-Validation Committees"
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (4)</td><td>0.9199</td><td>0.5943</td><td>0.2779</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (6)</td><td>0.9174</td><td>0.6124</td><td>0.2655</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (8)</td><td>0.9154</td><td>0.6196</td><td>0.2610</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (10)</td><td>0.9127</td><td>0.6245</td><td>0.2584</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td>0.9294</td><td>0.5756</td><td>0.2810</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Evaluation Results for Unweighted Cross-Validation Committees"
},
"TABREF6": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (4)</td><td>0.8263</td><td>0.8829</td><td>0.1463</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (6)</td><td>0.8270</td><td>0.8845</td><td>0.1452</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (8)</td><td>0.8270</td><td>0.8877</td><td>0.1437</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (10)</td><td>0.8265</td><td>0.8876</td><td>0.1440</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (4)</td><td>0.4278</td><td>0.1815</td><td>0.7451</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (6)</td><td>0.4432</td><td>0.1896</td><td>0.7344</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (8)</td><td>0.4540</td><td>0.1884</td><td>0.7336</td></tr><tr><td>Bagging (10)</td><td>0.4620</td><td>0.1896</td><td>0.7311</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Table 7. Single Word Alignment Results for Weighted Cross-Validation Committees</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (4)</td><td>0.8282</td><td>0.8833</td><td>0.1452</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (6)</td><td>0.8285</td><td>0.8847</td><td>0.1443</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (8)</td><td>0.8275</td><td>0.8851</td><td>0.1447</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (10)</td><td>0.8277</td><td>0.8867</td><td>0.1438</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Table 8. Multiword Alignment Results for Weighted Cross-Validation Committees</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (4)</td><td>0.4447</td><td>0.1908</td><td>0.7330</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (6)</td><td>0.4538</td><td>0.1931</td><td>0.7291</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (8)</td><td>0.4578</td><td>0.1942</td><td>0.7273</td></tr><tr><td>Validation (10)</td><td>0.4603</td><td>0.1942</td><td>0.7268</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Single Word Alignment Results for the Weighted Bagging Methods Multiword Alignment Results for the Weighted Bagging Methods"
},
"TABREF7": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Data</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td><td>Baseline (AER)</td><td>RERR</td></tr><tr><td>1/4</td><td>0.7684</td><td>0.7517</td><td>0.2316</td><td>0.2464</td><td>6.00%</td></tr><tr><td>1/2</td><td>0.7977</td><td>0.7775</td><td>0.2125</td><td>0.2293</td><td>7.33%</td></tr><tr><td>3/4</td><td>0.8023</td><td>0.7869</td><td>0.2055</td><td>0.2184</td><td>5.89%</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>0.8064</td><td>0.7948</td><td>0.1994</td><td>0.2152</td><td>7.34%</td></tr><tr><td>Data</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>AER</td><td>Baseline (AER)</td><td>RERR</td></tr><tr><td>1/4</td><td>0.8960</td><td>0.6033</td><td>0.2789</td><td>0.3310</td><td>15.72%</td></tr><tr><td>1/2</td><td>0.9077</td><td>0.6158</td><td>0.2662</td><td>0.3050</td><td>12.72%</td></tr><tr><td>3/4</td><td>0.9140</td><td>0.6270</td><td>0.2562</td><td>0.2943</td><td>12.95%</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>0.9132</td><td>0.6347</td><td>0.2511</td><td>0.2810</td><td>10.64%</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Weighted Bagging Results on Different Sizes of Training Sets Unweighted Bagging Results on Different Sizes of Training Sets"
}
}
}
} |