1. Enabling MT for Languages with Limited Resources Alon Lavie and Lori Levin Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University

2. March 11, 2005ARL Visit2 Progression of MT Started with rule-based systems –Very large expert human effort to construct language- specific resources (grammars, lexicons) –High-quality MT extremely expensive  only for handful of language pairs Along came EBMT and then SMT… –Replaced human effort with extremely large volumes of parallel text data –Less expensive, but still only feasible for a small number of language pairs –We “traded” human labor with data Where does this take us in 5-10 years? –Large parallel corpora for maybe 25-50 language pairs What about all the other languages? Is all this data (with very shallow representation of language structure) really necessary? Can we build MT approaches that learn deeper levels of language structure and how they map from one language to another?

3. March 11, 2005ARL Visit3 Why Machine Translation for Languages with Limited Resources? We are in the age of information explosion –The internet+web+Google  anyone can get the information they want anytime… But what about the text in all those other languages? –How do they read all this English stuff? –How do we read all the stuff that they put online? MT for these languages would Enable: –Better government access to native indigenous and minority communities –Better minority and native community participation in information-rich activities (health care, education, government) without giving up their languages. –Civilian and military applications (disaster relief) –Language preservation

4. March 11, 2005ARL Visit4 The Roadmap to Learning-based MT Automatic acquisition of necessary language resources and knowledge using machine learning methodologies: –Learning morphology (analysis/generation) –Rapid acquisition of broad coverage word-to-word and phrase-to-phrase translation lexicons –Learning of syntactic structural mappings Tree-to-tree structure transformations [Knight et al], [Eisner], [Melamed] require parse trees for both languages Learning syntactic transfer rules with resources (grammar, parses) for just one of the two languages –Automatic rule refinement and/or post-editing Effective integration of acquired knowledge with statistical/distributional information

5. March 11, 2005ARL Visit5 CMU’s AVENUE Approach Elicitation: use bilingual native informants to produce a small high-quality word-aligned bilingual corpus of translated phrases and sentences Transfer-rule Learning: apply ML-based methods to automatically acquire syntactic transfer rules for translation between the two languages –Learn from major language to minor language –Translate from minor language to major language XFER + Decoder: –XFER engine produces a lattice of all possible transferred structures at all levels –Decoder searches and selects the best scoring combination Rule Refinement: refine the acquired rules via a process of interaction with bilingual informants Morphology Learning Word and Phrase bilingual lexicon acquisition

6. March 11, 2005ARL Visit6 AVENUE Architecture Learning Module Transfer Rules {PP,4894} ;;Score:0.0470 PP::PP [NP POSTP] -> [PREP NP] ((X2::Y1) (X1::Y2)) Translation Lexicon Run Time Transfer System Lattice Decoder English Language Model Word-to-Word Translation Probabilities Word-aligned elicited data

7. March 11, 2005ARL Visit7 Learning Transfer-Rules for Languages with Limited Resources Rationale: –Bilingual native informant(s) can translate and align a small pre-designed elicitation corpus, using elicitation tool –Elicitation corpus designed to be typologically and structurally comprehensive and compositional –Transfer-rule engine and new learning approach support acquisition of generalized transfer-rules from the data

8. March 11, 2005ARL Visit8 Transfer Rule Formalism Type information Part-of-speech/constituent information Alignments x-side constraints y-side constraints xy-constraints, e.g. ((Y1 AGR) = (X1 AGR)) ; SL: the old man, TL: ha-ish ha-zaqen NP::NP [DET ADJ N] -> [DET N DET ADJ] ( (X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2) ((X1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X1 DEF = *DEF) ((X3 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X3 COUNT) = +) ((Y1 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y3 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y2 GENDER) = (Y4 GENDER)) )

9. March 11, 2005ARL Visit9 Rule Learning - Overview Goal: Acquire Syntactic Transfer Rules Use available knowledge from the source side (grammatical structure) Three steps: 1.Flat Seed Generation: first guesses at transfer rules; flat syntactic structure 2.Compositionality: use previously learned rules to add hierarchical structure 3.Constraint Learning: refine rules by learning appropriate feature constraints

10. March 11, 2005ARL Visit10 Flat Seed Rule Generation Learning Example: NP Eng: the big apple Heb: ha-tapuax ha-gadol Generated Seed Rule: NP::NP [ART ADJ N]  [ART N ART ADJ] ((X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2))

11. March 11, 2005ARL Visit11 Compositionality Initial Flat Rules: S::S [ART ADJ N V ART N]  [ART N ART ADJ V P ART N] ((X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2) (X4::Y5) (X5::Y7) (X6::Y8)) NP::NP [ART ADJ N]  [ART N ART ADJ] ((X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2)) NP::NP [ART N]  [ART N] ((X1::Y1) (X2::Y2)) Generated Compositional Rule: S::S [NP V NP]  [NP V P NP] ((X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) (X3::Y4))

12. March 11, 2005ARL Visit12 Constraint Learning Input: Rules and their Example Sets S::S [NP V NP]  [NP V P NP] {ex1,ex12,ex17,ex26} ((X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) (X3::Y4)) NP::NP [ART ADJ N]  [ART N ART ADJ] {ex2,ex3,ex13} ((X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2)) NP::NP [ART N]  [ART N] {ex4,ex5,ex6,ex8,ex10,ex11} ((X1::Y1) (X2::Y2)) Output: Rules with Feature Constraints: S::S [NP V NP]  [NP V P NP] ((X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) (X3::Y4) (X1 NUM = X2 NUM) (Y1 NUM = Y2 NUM) (X1 NUM = Y1 NUM))

13. March 11, 2005ARL Visit13 AVENUE Prototypes General XFER framework under development for past two years Prototype systems so far: –German-to-English, Spanish-to-English –Hindi-to-English, Hebrew-to-English In progress or planned: –Mapudungun-to-Spanish –Quechua-to-Spanish –Arabic-to-English –Native-Brazilian languages to Brazilian Portuguese

14. March 11, 2005ARL Visit14 Morphology Learning Unsupervised learning of morphemes and their function from raw monolingual data –Segmentation of words into morphemes –Identification of morphological paradigms (inflections and derivations) –Learning association between morphemes and their function in the language

15. March 11, 2005ARL Visit15 Ø.ed.ly 11 clear direct present quiet … Ø.ed.ing.ly 6 clear open present Total ed.ly 12 bodi clear correct quiet … Ø.ed.ing.ly.s 4 clear open … Ø.ed.ing 201 aid clear defend deliver … d.ded.ding 27 ai boar defen … d.ded.ding.ds 19 ad boar defen … Ø.ed.ing.s 106 clear defend open present … Morphology Learning AVENUE Approach: Organize the raw data in the form of a network of paradigm candidate schemes Search the network for a collection of schemes that represent true morphology paradigms of the language Learn mappings between the schemes and features/functions using minimal pairs of elicited data Construct analyzer based on the collection of schemes and the acquired function mappings

16. March 11, 2005ARL Visit16 a.as.o.os 43 african cas jurídic l... a.as.i.o.os.sandra.tanier.ter.tro.trol 1 cas a.as.os 50 afectad cas jurídic l... a.as.o 59 cas citad jurídic l... a.o.os 105 impuest indonesi italian jurídic... a.as 199 huelg incluid industri inundad... a.os 134 impedid impuest indonesi inundad... as.os 68 cas implicad inundad jurídic... a.o 214 id indi indonesi inmediat... as.o 85 intern jurídic just l... a.tro 2 cas cen a 1237 huelg ib id iglesi... as 404 huelg huelguist incluid industri... os 534 humorístic human hígad impedid... o 1139 hub hug human huyend... tro 16 catas ce cen cua... as.o.os 54 cas implicad jurídic l... Figure : Hierarchical scheme lattice automatically derived from a Spanish newswire corpus of 40,011 words and 6,975 unique types. o.os 268 human implicad indici indocumentad...

17. March 11, 2005ARL Visit17 Automated Rule Refinement Rationale: –Bilingual informants can identify translation errors and pinpoint the errors –A sophisticated trace of the translation path can identify likely sources for the error and do “Blame Assignment” –Rule Refinement operators can be developed to modify the underlying translation grammar (and lexicon) based on characteristics of the error source: Add or delete feature constraints from a rule Bifurcate a rule into two rules (general and specific) Add or correct lexical entries

18. March 11, 2005ARL Visit18 Missing Science Monolingual learning tasks: –Learning morphology: morphemes and their meaning –Learning syntactic and semantic structures: grammar induction Bilingual Learning Tasks: –Automatic acquisition of word and phrase translation lexicons –Learning structural mappings (syntactic and semantic) Models that effectively combine learned symbolic knowledge with statistical information: new “decoders”

19. March 11, 2005ARL Visit19

20. March 11, 2005ARL Visit20 English-Chinese Example

21. March 11, 2005ARL Visit21 English-Hindi Example

22. March 11, 2005ARL Visit22 Spanish-Mapudungun Example

23. March 11, 2005ARL Visit23 English-Arabic Example

24. March 11, 2005ARL Visit24 Transfer Rule Formalism (II) Value constraints Agreement constraints ;SL: the old man, TL: ha-ish ha-zaqen NP::NP [DET ADJ N] -> [DET N DET ADJ] ( (X1::Y1) (X1::Y3) (X2::Y4) (X3::Y2) ((X1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X1 DEF = *DEF) ((X3 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X3 COUNT) = +) ((Y1 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y3 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y2 GENDER) = (Y4 GENDER)) )

25. March 11, 2005ARL Visit25 AVENUE Partners LanguageCountryInstitutions Mapudungun (in place) Chile Universidad de la Frontera, Institute for Indigenous Studies, Ministry of Education Quechua (discussion) Peru Ministry of Education Aymara (discussion) Bolivia, Peru Ministry of Education

26. March 11, 2005ARL Visit26 The Transfer Engine Analysis Source text is parsed into its grammatical structure. Determines transfer application ordering. Example: 他 看 书。 (he read book) S NP VP N V NP 他 看 书 Transfer A target language tree is created by reordering, insertion, and deletion. S NP VP N V NP he read DET N a book Article “a” is inserted into object NP. Source words translated with transfer lexicon. Generation Target language constraints are checked and final translation produced. E.g. “reads” is chosen over “read” to agree with “he”. Final translation: “He reads a book”

27. March 11, 2005ARL Visit27 Seeded VSL: Some Open Issues Three types of constraints: –X-side constrain applicability of rule –Y-side assist in generation –X-Y transfer features from SL to TL Which of the three types improves translation performance? –Use rules without features to populate lattice, decoder will select the best translation… –Learn only X-Y constraints, based on list of universal projecting features Other notions of version-spaces of feature constraints: –Current feature learning is specific to rules that have identical transfer components –Important issue during transfer is to disambiguate among rules that have same SL side but different TL side – can we learn effective constraints for this?

28. March 11, 2005ARL Visit28 Examples of Learned Rules (Hindi-to-English) {NP,14244} ;;Score:0.0429 NP::NP [N] -> [DET N] ( (X1::Y2) ) {NP,14434} ;;Score:0.0040 NP::NP [ADJ CONJ ADJ N] -> [ADJ CONJ ADJ N] ( (X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) (X3::Y3) (X4::Y4) ) {PP,4894} ;;Score:0.0470 PP::PP [NP POSTP] -> [PREP NP] ( (X2::Y1) (X1::Y2) )

29. March 11, 2005ARL Visit29 XFER MT for Hebrew-to-English Two month intensive effort to apply our XFER approach to the development of a Hebrew-to-English MT system Challenges: –No large parallel corpus –Limited coverage translation lexicon –Rich Morphology: incomplete analyzer available Accomplished: –Collected available resources, establish methodology for processing Hebrew input –Translated and aligned Elicitation Corpus –Learned XFER rules –Developed (small) manual XFER grammar as a point of comparison –System debugging and development –Evaluated performance on unseen test data using automatic evaluation metrics

30. March 11, 2005ARL Visit30 Transfer Engine English Language Model Transfer Rules {NP1,3} NP1::NP1 [NP1 "H" ADJ] -> [ADJ NP1] ((X3::Y1) (X1::Y2) ((X1 def) = +) ((X1 status) =c absolute) ((X1 num) = (X3 num)) ((X1 gen) = (X3 gen)) (X0 = X1)) Translation Lexicon N::N |: ["$WR"] -> ["BULL"] ((X1::Y1) ((X0 NUM) = s) ((Y0 lex) = "BULL")) N::N |: ["$WRH"] -> ["LINE"] ((X1::Y1) ((X0 NUM) = s) ((Y0 lex) = "LINE")) Hebrew Input בשורה הבאה Decoder English Output in the next line Translation Output Lattice (0 1 "IN" @PREP) (1 1 "THE" @DET) (2 2 "LINE" @N) (1 2 "THE LINE" @NP) (0 2 "IN LINE" @PP) (0 4 "IN THE NEXT LINE" @PP) Preprocessing Morphology

31. March 11, 2005ARL Visit31 Morphology Example Input word: B$WRH 0 1 2 3 4 |--------B$WRH--------| |-----B-----|$WR|--H--| |--B--|-H--|--$WRH---|

32. March 11, 2005ARL Visit32 Morphology Example Y0: ((SPANSTART 0) Y1: ((SPANSTART 0) Y2: ((SPANSTART 1) (SPANEND 4) (SPANEND 2) (SPANEND 3) (LEX B$WRH) (LEX B) (LEX $WR) (POS N) (POS PREP)) (POS N) (GEN F) (GEN M) (NUM S) (NUM S) (STATUS ABSOLUTE)) (STATUS ABSOLUTE)) Y3: ((SPANSTART 3) Y4: ((SPANSTART 0) Y5: ((SPANSTART 1) (SPANEND 4) (SPANEND 1) (SPANEND 2) (LEX $LH) (LEX B) (LEX H) (POS POSS)) (POS PREP)) (POS DET)) Y6: ((SPANSTART 2) Y7: ((SPANSTART 0) (SPANEND 4) (SPANEND 4) (LEX $WRH) (LEX B$WRH) (POS N) (POS LEX)) (GEN F) (NUM S) (STATUS ABSOLUTE))

33. March 11, 2005ARL Visit33 Sample Output (dev-data) maxwell anurpung comes from ghana for israel four years ago and since worked in cleaning in hotels in eilat a few weeks ago announced if management club hotel that for him to leave israel according to the government instructions and immigration police in a letter in broken english which spread among the foreign workers thanks to them hotel for their hard work and announced that will purchase for hm flight tickets for their countries from their money

34. March 11, 2005ARL Visit34 Evaluation Results Test set of 62 sentences from Haaretz newspaper, 2 reference translations SystemBLEUNISTPRMETEOR No Gram0.06163.41090.40900.44270.3298 Learned0.07743.54510.41890.44880.3478 Manual0.10263.77890.43340.44740.3617

35. March 11, 2005ARL Visit35 Future Directions Continued work on automatic rule learning (especially Seeded Version Space Learning) –Use Hebrew and Hindi systems as test platforms for experimenting with advanced learning research Rule Refinement via interaction with bilingual speakers Developing a well-founded model for assigning scores (probabilities) to transfer rules Redesigning and improving decoder to better fit the specific characteristics of the XFER model Improved leveraging from manual grammar resources MEMT with improved –Combination of output from different translation engines with different confidence scores – strong decoding capabilities

36. March 11, 2005ARL Visit36 Flat Seed Generation Create a transfer rule that is specific to the sentence pair, but abstracted to the POS level. No syntactic structure. ElementSource SL POS sequencef-structure TL POS sequenceTL dictionary, aligned SL words Type informationcorpus, same on SL and TL Alignmentsinformant x-side constraintsf-structure y-side constraintsTL dictionary, aligned SL words (list of projecting features)

37. March 11, 2005ARL Visit37 Compositionality - Overview Traverse the c-structure of the English sentence, add compositional structure for translatable chunks Adjust constituent sequences, alignments Remove unnecessary constraints, i.e. those that are contained in the lower- level rule

38. March 11, 2005ARL Visit38 Seeded Version Space Learning: Overview Goal: add appropriate feature constraints to the acquired rules Methodology: –Preserve general structural transfer –Learn specific feature constraints from example set Seed rules are grouped into clusters of similar transfer structure (type, constituent sequences, alignments) Each cluster forms a version space: a partially ordered hypothesis space with a specific and a general boundary The seed rules in a group form the specific boundary of a version space The general boundary is the (implicit) transfer rule with the same type, constituent sequences, and alignments, but no feature constraints

39. March 11, 2005ARL Visit39 Seeded Version Space Learning: Generalization The partial order of the version space: Definition: A transfer rule tr 1 is strictly more general than another transfer rule tr 2 if all f- structures that are satisfied by tr 2 are also satisfied by tr 1. Generalize rules by merging them: –Deletion of constraint –Raising two value constraints to an agreement constraint, e.g. ((x1 num) = *pl), ((x3 num) = *pl)  ((x1 num) = (x3 num))

40. March 11, 2005ARL Visit40 Seeded Version Space Learning NP v det nNP VP … 1.Group seed rules into version spaces as above. 2.Make use of partial order of rules in version space. Partial order is defined via the f-structures satisfying the constraints. 3.Generalize in the space by repeated merging of rules: 1.Deletion of constraint 2.Moving value constraints to agreement constraints, e.g. ((x1 num) = *pl), ((x3 num) = *pl)  ((x1 num) = (x3 num) 4. Check translation power of generalized rules against sentence pairs

41. March 11, 2005ARL Visit41 Seeded Version Space Learning: The Search The Seeded Version Space algorithm itself is the repeated generalization of rules by merging A merge is successful if the set of sentences that can correctly be translated with the merged rule is a superset of the union of sets that can be translated with the unmerged rules, i.e. check power of rule Merge until no more successful merges

42. March 11, 2005ARL Visit42 Conclusions Transfer rules (both manual and learned) offer significant contributions that can complement existing data-driven approaches –Also in medium and large data settings? Initial steps to development of a statistically grounded transfer-based MT system with: –Rules that are scored based on a well-founded probability model –Strong and effective decoding that incorporates the most advanced techniques used in SMT decoding Working from the “opposite” end of research on incorporating models of syntax into “standard” SMT systems [Knight et al] Our direction makes sense in the limited data scenario

43. March 11, 2005ARL Visit43 AVENUE Architecture User Learning Module Elicitation Process Transfer Rule Learning Transfer Rules Run-Time Module SL Input SL Parser Transfer Engine TL Generator TL Output Decoder Morphology Pre-proc

44. March 11, 2005ARL Visit44 Learning Transfer-Rules for Languages with Limited Resources Rationale: –Large bilingual corpora not available –Bilingual native informant(s) can translate and align a small pre-designed elicitation corpus, using elicitation tool –Elicitation corpus designed to be typologically comprehensive and compositional –Transfer-rule engine and new learning approach support acquisition of generalized transfer-rules from the data

45. March 11, 2005ARL Visit45 The Elicitation Corpus Translated, aligned by bilingual informant Corpus consists of linguistically diverse constructions Based on elicitation and documentation work of field linguists (e.g. Comrie 1977, Bouquiaux 1992) Organized compositionally: elicit simple structures first, then use them as building blocks Goal: minimize size, maximize linguistic coverage

46. March 11, 2005ARL Visit46 The Transfer Engine Analysis Source text is parsed into its grammatical structure. Determines transfer application ordering. Example: 他 看 书。 (he read book) S NP VP N V NP 他 看 书 Transfer A target language tree is created by reordering, insertion, and deletion. S NP VP N V NP he read DET N a book Article “a” is inserted into object NP. Source words translated with transfer lexicon. Generation Target language constraints are checked and final translation produced. E.g. “reads” is chosen over “read” to agree with “he”. Final translation: “He reads a book”

47. March 11, 2005ARL Visit47 Transfer Rule Formalism Type information Part-of-speech/constituent information Alignments x-side constraints y-side constraints xy-constraints, e.g. ((Y1 AGR) = (X1 AGR)) ; SL: the man, TL: der Mann NP::NP [DET N] -> [DET N] ( (X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) ((X1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X1 DEF = *DEF) ((X2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X2 COUNT) = +) ((Y1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y1 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y2 GENDER) = (Y1 GENDER)) )

48. March 11, 2005ARL Visit48 Transfer Rule Formalism (II) Value constraints Agreement constraints ;SL: the man, TL: der Mann NP::NP [DET N] -> [DET N] ( (X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) ((X1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X1 DEF = *DEF) ((X2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((X2 COUNT) = +) ((Y1 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y1 DEF) = *DEF) ((Y2 AGR) = *3-SING) ((Y2 GENDER) = (Y1 GENDER)) )

49. March 11, 2005ARL Visit49 Rule Learning - Overview Goal: Acquire Syntactic Transfer Rules Use available knowledge from the source side (grammatical structure) Three steps: 1.Flat Seed Generation: first guesses at transfer rules; flat syntactic structure 2.Compositionality: use previously learned rules to add hierarchical structure 3.Seeded Version Space Learning: refine rules by generalizing with validation (learn appropriate feature constraints)

50. March 11, 2005ARL Visit50 Examples of Learned Rules (I) {NP,14244} ;;Score:0.0429 NP::NP [N] -> [DET N] ( (X1::Y2) ) {NP,14434} ;;Score:0.0040 NP::NP [ADJ CONJ ADJ N] -> [ADJ CONJ ADJ N] ( (X1::Y1) (X2::Y2) (X3::Y3) (X4::Y4) ) {PP,4894} ;;Score:0.0470 PP::PP [NP POSTP] -> [PREP NP] ( (X2::Y1) (X1::Y2) )

51. March 11, 2005ARL Visit51 A Limited Data Scenario for Hindi-to-English Put together a scenario with “miserly” data resources: –Elicited Data corpus: 17589 phrases –Cleaned portion (top 12%) of LDC dictionary: ~2725 Hindi words (23612 translation pairs) –Manually acquired resources during the SLE: 500 manual bigram translations 72 manually written phrase transfer rules 105 manually written postposition rules 48 manually written time expression rules No additional parallel text!!

52. March 11, 2005ARL Visit52 Manual Grammar Development Covers mostly NPs, PPs and VPs (verb complexes) ~70 grammar rules, covering basic and recursive NPs and PPs, verb complexes of main tenses in Hindi (developed in two weeks)

53. March 11, 2005ARL Visit53 Manual Transfer Rules: Example ;; PASSIVE OF SIMPLE PAST (NO AUX) WITH LIGHT VERB ;; passive of 43 (7b) {VP,28} VP::VP : [V V V] -> [Aux V] ( (X1::Y2) ((x1 form) = root) ((x2 type) =c light) ((x2 form) = part) ((x2 aspect) = perf) ((x3 lexwx) = 'jAnA') ((x3 form) = part) ((x3 aspect) = perf) (x0 = x1) ((y1 lex) = be) ((y1 tense) = past) ((y1 agr num) = (x3 agr num)) ((y1 agr pers) = (x3 agr pers)) ((y2 form) = part) )

54. March 11, 2005ARL Visit54 Manual Transfer Rules: Example ; NP1 ke NP2 -> NP2 of NP1 ; Ex: jIvana ke eka aXyAya ; life of (one) chapter ; ==> a chapter of life ; {NP,12} NP::NP : [PP NP1] -> [NP1 PP] ( (X1::Y2) (X2::Y1) ; ((x2 lexwx) = 'kA') ) {NP,13} NP::NP : [NP1] -> [NP1] ( (X1::Y1) ) {PP,12} PP::PP : [NP Postp] -> [Prep NP] ( (X1::Y2) (X2::Y1) ) NP PP NP1 NP P Adj N N1 ke eka aXyAya N jIvana NP NP1 PP Adj N P NP one chapter of N1 N life

55. March 11, 2005ARL Visit55 Adding a “Strong” Decoder XFER system produces a full lattice Edges are scored using word-to-word translation probabilities, trained from the limited bilingual data Decoder uses an English LM (70m words) Decoder can also reorder words or phrases (up to 4 positions ahead) For XFER (strong), ONLY edges from basic XFER system are used!

56. March 11, 2005ARL Visit56 Testing Conditions Tested on section of JHU provided data: 258 sentences with four reference translations –SMT system (stand-alone) –EBMT system (stand-alone) –XFER system (naïve decoding) –XFER system with “strong” decoder No grammar rules (baseline) Manually developed grammar rules Automatically learned grammar rules –XFER+SMT with strong decoder (MEMT)

57. March 11, 2005ARL Visit57 Results on JHU Test Set (very miserly training data) SystemBLEUM-BLEUNIST EBMT0.0580.1654.22 SMT0.0930.1914.64 XFER (naïve) man grammar 0.0550.1774.46 XFER (strong) no grammar 0.1090.2245.29 XFER (strong) learned grammar 0.1160.2315.37 XFER (strong) man grammar 0.1350.2435.59 XFER+SMT0.1360.2435.65

58. March 11, 2005ARL Visit58 Effect of Reordering in the Decoder

59. March 11, 2005ARL Visit59 Observations and Lessons (I) XFER with strong decoder outperformed SMT even without any grammar rules in the miserly data scenario –SMT Trained on elicited phrases that are very short –SMT has insufficient data to train more discriminative translation probabilities –XFER takes advantage of Morphology Token coverage without morphology: 0.6989 Token coverage with morphology: 0.7892 Manual grammar currently somewhat better than automatically learned grammar –Learned rules did not yet use version-space learning –Large room for improvement on learning rules –Importance of effective well-founded scoring of learned rules

60. March 11, 2005ARL Visit60 Observations and Lessons (II) MEMT (XFER and SMT) based on strong decoder produced best results in the miserly scenario. Reordering within the decoder provided very significant score improvements –Much room for more sophisticated grammar rules –Strong decoder can carry some of the reordering “burden”

61. March 11, 2005ARL Visit61 Conclusions Transfer rules (both manual and learned) offer significant contributions that can complement existing data-driven approaches –Also in medium and large data settings? Initial steps to development of a statistically grounded transfer-based MT system with: –Rules that are scored based on a well-founded probability model –Strong and effective decoding that incorporates the most advanced techniques used in SMT decoding Working from the “opposite” end of research on incorporating models of syntax into “standard” SMT systems [Knight et al] Our direction makes sense in the limited data scenario

62. March 11, 2005ARL Visit62 Future Directions Continued work on automatic rule learning (especially Seeded Version Space Learning) Improved leveraging from manual grammar resources, interaction with bilingual speakers Developing a well-founded model for assigning scores (probabilities) to transfer rules Improving the strong decoder to better fit the specific characteristics of the XFER model MEMT with improved –Combination of output from different translation engines with different scorings – strong decoding capabilities

63. March 11, 2005ARL Visit63 Rule Learning - Overview Goal: Acquire Syntactic Transfer Rules Use available knowledge from the source side (grammatical structure) Three steps: 1.Flat Seed Generation: first guesses at transfer rules; no syntactic structure 2.Compositionality: use previously learned rules to add structure 3.Seeded Version Space Learning: refine rules by generalizing with validation

64. March 11, 2005ARL Visit64 Flat Seed Generation Create a transfer rule that is specific to the sentence pair, but abstracted to the POS level. No syntactic structure. ElementSource SL POS sequencef-structure TL POS sequenceTL dictionary, aligned SL words Type informationcorpus, same on SL and TL Alignmentsinformant x-side constraintsf-structure y-side constraintsTL dictionary, aligned SL words (list of projecting features)

65. March 11, 2005ARL Visit65 Flat Seed Generation - Example The highly qualified applicant did not accept the offer. Der äußerst qualifizierte Bewerber nahm das Angebot nicht an. ((1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4),(6,8),(7,5),(7,9),(8,6),(9,7)) S::S [det adv adj n aux neg v det n] -> [det adv adj n v det n neg vpart] (;;alignments: (x1:y1)(x2::y2)(x3::y3)(x4::y4)(x6::y8)(x7::y5)(x7::y9)(x8::y6)(x9::y7)) ;;constraints: ((x1 def) = *+) ((x4 agr) = *3-sing) ((x5 tense) = *past) …. ((y1 def) = *+) ((y3 case) = *nom) ((y4 agr) = *3-sing) …. )

66. March 11, 2005ARL Visit66 Compositionality - Overview Traverse the c-structure of the English sentence, add compositional structure for translatable chunks Adjust constituent sequences, alignments Remove unnecessary constraints, i.e. those that are contained in the lower-level rule Adjust constraints: use f-structure of correct translation vs. f-structure of incorrect translations to introduce context constraints

67. March 11, 2005ARL Visit67 Compositionality - Example S::S [det adv adj n aux neg v det n] -> [det adv adj n v det n neg vpart] (;;alignments: (x1:y1)(x2::y2)(x3::y3)(x4::y4)(x6::y8)(x7::y5)(x7::y9)(x8::y6)(x9::y7)) ;;constraints: ((x1 def) = *+) ((x4 agr) = *3-sing) ((x5 tense) = *past) …. ((y1 def) = *+) ((y3 case) = *nom) ((y4 agr) = *3-sing) …. ) S::S [NP aux neg v det n] -> [NP v det n neg vpart] (;;alignments: (x1::y1)(x3::y5)(x4::y2)(x4::y6)(x5::y3)(x6::y4) ;;constraints: ((x2 tense) = *past) …. ((y1 def) = *+) ((y1 case) = *nom) …. ) NP::NP [det AJDP n] -> [det ADJP n] ((x1::y1)… ((y3 agr) = *3-sing) ((x3 agr = *3-sing) ….)

68. March 11, 2005ARL Visit68 Seeded Version Space Learning: Overview Goal: further generalize the acquired rules Methodology: –Preserve general structural transfer –Consider relaxing specific feature constraints Seed rules are grouped into clusters of similar transfer structure (type, constituent sequences, alignments) Each cluster forms a version space: a partially ordered hypothesis space with a specific and a general boundary The seed rules in a group form the specific boundary of a version space The general boundary is the (implicit) transfer rule with the same type, constituent sequences, and alignments, but no feature constraints

69. March 11, 2005ARL Visit69 Seeded Version Space Learning NP v det nNP VP … 1.Group seed rules into version spaces as above. 2.Make use of partial order of rules in version space. Partial order is defined via the f-structures satisfying the constraints. 3.Generalize in the space by repeated merging of rules: 1.Deletion of constraint 2.Moving value constraints to agreement constraints, e.g. ((x1 num) = *pl), ((x3 num) = *pl)  ((x1 num) = (x3 num) 4. Check translation power of generalized rules against sentence pairs

70. March 11, 2005ARL Visit70 Seeded Version Space Learning: Example S::S [NP aux neg v det n] -> [NP v det n neg vpart] (;;alignments: (x1::y1)(x3::y5)(x4::y2)(x4::y6)(x5::y3)(x6::y4) ;;constraints: ((x2 tense) = *past) …. ((y1 def) = *+) ((y1 case) = *nom) ((y1 agr) = *3-sing) … ) ((y3 agr) = *3-sing) ((y4 agr) = *3-sing)… ) S::S [NP aux neg v det n] -> [NP v det n neg vpart] (;;alignments: (x1::y1)(x3::y5)(x4::y2)(x4::y6)(x5::y3)(x6::y4) ;;constraints: ((x2 tense) = *past) … ((y1 def) = *+) ((y1 case) = *nom) ((y1 agr) = *3-plu) … ((y3 agr) = *3-plu) ((y4 agr) = *3-plu)… ) S::S [NP aux neg v det n] -> [NP n det n neg vpart] ( ;;alignments: (x1::y1)(x3::y5) (x4::y2)(x4::y6) (x5::y3)(x6::y4) ;;constraints: ((x2 tense) = *past) … ((y1 def) = *+) ((y1 case) = *nom) ((y4 agr) = (y3 agr)) … )

71. March 11, 2005ARL Visit71 Preliminary Evaluation English to German Corpus of 141 ADJPs, simple NPs and sentences 10-fold cross-validation experiment Goals: –Do we learn useful transfer rules? –Does Compositionality improve generalization? –Does VS-learning improve generalization?

72. March 11, 2005ARL Visit72 Summary of Results Average translation accuracy on cross- validation test set was 62% Without VS-learning: 43% Without Compositionality: 57% Average number of VSs: 24 Average number of sents per VS: 3.8 Average number of merges per VS: 1.6 Percent of compositional rules: 34%

73. March 11, 2005ARL Visit73 Conclusions New paradigm for learning transfer rules from pre-designed elicitation corpus Geared toward languages with very limited resources Preliminary experiments validate approach: compositionality and VS- learning improve generalization

74. March 11, 2005ARL Visit74 Future Work 1.Larger, more diverse elicitation corpus 2.Additional languages (Mapudungun…) 3.Less information on TL side 4.Reverse translation direction 5.Refine the various algorithms: Operators for VS generalization Generalization VS search Layers for compositionality 6.User interactive verification

75. March 11, 2005ARL Visit75 Seeded Version Space Learning: Generalization The partial order of the version space: Definition: A transfer rule tr 1 is strictly more general than another transfer rule tr 2 if all f- structures that are satisfied by tr 2 are also satisfied by tr 1. Generalize rules by merging them: –Deletion of constraint –Raising two value constraints to an agreement constraint, e.g. ((x1 num) = *pl), ((x3 num) = *pl)  ((x1 num) = (x3 num))

76. March 11, 2005ARL Visit76 Seeded Version Space Learning: Merging Two Rules Merging algorithm proceeds in three steps. To merge tr 1 and tr 2 into tr merged : 1.Copy all constraints that are both in tr 1 and tr 2 into tr merged 2.Consider tr 1 and tr 2 separately. For the remaining constraints in tr 1 and tr 2, perform all possible instances of raising value constraints to agreement constraints. 3.Repeat step 1.

77. March 11, 2005ARL Visit77 Seeded Version Space Learning: The Search The Seeded Version Space algorithm itself is the repeated generalization of rules by merging A merge is successful if the set of sentences that can correctly be translated with the merged rule is a superset of the union of sets that can be translated with the unmerged rules, i.e. check power of rule Merge until no more successful merges