Modification of annotated bilingual segment pairs in syntax-based machine translation

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8825466
  • Patent Number
    8,825,466
  • Date Filed
    Friday, June 8, 2007
    17 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 2, 2014
    10 years ago
Abstract
Systems and methods for automatically modifying an annotated bilingual segment pair are provided. An annotated bilingual segment pair (“Pair”) may be modified to generate improved translation rules used in machine translation of documents from a source language to a target language. Because a single Pair may be used to translate a phrase, many Pairs are used in a machine translation system and manual correction of each model is impractical. Each Pair may be modified by re-labeling syntactic categories within the Pair, re-structuring a tree within the Pair, and/or re-aligning source words to target words within the Pair. In exemplary embodiments, many alternate Pairs (or portions thereof) are generated automatically, rule sequences corresponding to each are derived, and one or more rule sequences are selected. Using the selected rule sequence, a modified Pair is distilled.
Description
BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention


The invention disclosed herein is generally related to machine translation and more specifically to modification of annotated bilingual segment pairs in syntax-based machine translation.


2. Description of the Related Art


To translate written documents from a source language, such as Arabic, to a target language, such as English, machine translation performed by a computer may be used. One technique, statistical machine translation, used to perform machine translation includes generating a translation model comprising translation rules derived from phrases in the source language matched with phrases in the target language These paired phrases include annotated bilingual segment pairs. The annotated bilingual segment pair may be a sentence, a fragment, or a phrase.


In a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair, the target phrase may be represented as a tree having branches separating syntactic structures in the target phrase. The nodes of the tree are typically labeled based on the syntactic structure of the branch. Syntactic structures include noun phrases, verb phrases, adverb phrases, or the like. The annotated bilingual segment pair may further include alignments between the words in the source language and words in the target language.



FIG. 1 is a diagram of a prior art process 100 for deriving translation rules from an annotated bilingual segment pair. The process 100 comprises, in a single iteration, receiving the annotated bilingual segment pair 102 and training a translation engine based on the annotated bilingual segment pair 102 to generate composed rules 104. The composed rules 104 may be used by the translation engine to translate a document from the source language to the target language.


The annotated bilingual segment pair 102 is a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair and comprises one or more parent nodes that are each associated with at least two children. The children may, in turn, be parent nodes for other children. Each node is labeled with a syntactic structure identifier such as noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP), adverb phrase (ADVP), or the like. Each endpoint comprises a word in a target language, designated in FIG. 1 by the letter “a.” In the annotated bilingual segment pair 102, words in a target phrase designated by the letter “e” are each aligned via a dotted line to one or more words in the target phrase.


The annotations on a bilingual segment pair are generated automatically by a machine and may include inaccurate or imprecise labels, structures, and/or alignments. In machine translation, millions of the annotated bilingual segment pairs may be used and it may be impractical to correct each of the annotated bilingual segment pairs manually. Further, poor annotated bilingual segment pairs may result in translations that are not comprehensible, nonsensical, or awkward.


SUMMARY

Systems and methods for correcting an annotated bilingual segment pair are provided. In a method according to one embodiment, an annotated bilingual segment pair is received. The annotated bilingual segment pair is processed to generate a plurality of trees based on a tree or set of alignments in the annotated bilingual segment pair. From the plurality of trees, rule sequences are derived. The rule sequences are then processed using an expectation-maximization algorithm to select one of the rule sequences that is most likely to result in an accurate and fluent translation of the source phrase. A second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the selected rule sequence is generated.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a diagram of a prior art process for deriving translation rules from an annotated bilingual segment pair;



FIG. 2 depicts an environment in which various embodiments may be practiced;



FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a modification engine according to various embodiments;



FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary process for modifying annotated bilingual segment pairs according to various embodiments;



FIG. 5 is a diagram of an example of re-labeling an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments;



FIG. 6 is a diagram of an example of re-structuring an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments;



FIG. 7 is a diagram of an exemplary forest generated from an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments;



FIG. 8 is a diagram of an example of re-aligning an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments; and



FIG. 9 is a diagram of a process for deriving translation rules from a received annotated bilingual segment pair.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In machine translation, annotated bilingual segment pairs are used to generate translation rules. The translation rules can then be used to translate documents from a source language to a target language. The translation rules are generated from the annotated bilingual segment pairs using a training process. Translation rules may comprise composed rules and/or minimal rules, as is known in the art. Systems and methods for modifying an annotated bilingual segment pair are presented.


The modification of the annotated bilingual segment pair may comprise re-labeling the syntactic structures in the annotated bilingual segment pair, re-structuring the nodes in the annotated bilingual segment pair, and/or re-aligning words in a source phrase to words in a target phrase. To modify the annotated bilingual segment pair, the annotated bilingual segment pair is processed to generate a plurality of trees. Each tree represents a possible modification of the annotated bilingual segment pair. Any number of trees may be generated. A set of rule sequences used to explain each tree is derived. From the derived rule sequences, one of the derived rule sequences is selected using an expectation-maximization algorithm. The expectation-maximization algorithm calculates a probability that a derived rule sequence is correct for any given translation and then compares the probability to the other probabilities associated with the other derived rule sequences. Based on the comparison, the derived rule sequence having the highest probability of generating the correct translation is selected.


Using the selected rule sequence, a new annotated bilingual segment pair is generated for the source phrase and the target phrase. The new annotated bilingual segment pair is based on the rule sequence having the highest probability, as discussed herein. The new annotated bilingual segment pair may be used to generate a translation rule and/or train a translation engine as part of a larger set of annotated bilingual segment pairs.



FIG. 2 depicts an environment 200 in which various embodiments may be practiced. The environment 200 may comprise a bilingual engine, or bilingual data engine 202, a modification engine 204, and a training engine 206 configured to communicate over a network 208. The network 208 may comprise a public or private network such as a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or the Internet. The bilingual data engine 202, the modification engine 204, and the training engine 206 may be implemented in hardware, software, or any combination thereof as is known to those skilled in the art.


The bilingual data engine 202 is configured to receive and store bilingual data. In some embodiments, the bilingual data engine 202 is configured to receive pairs of source phrases and target phrases that are translations of one another. The bilingual data engine 202 may process the bilingual data to generate annotated bilingual segment pairs or other data structures that can be used to translate documents including, but not limited to, translation memories, context databases, dictionaries, or the like. According to various embodiments, the annotated bilingual segment pairs may be tree-to-string, tree-to-tree, and/or string-to-tree. The bilingual data engine 202 may communicate the bilingual data to the training engine 206.


The modification engine 204 may be configured to receive the bilingual data and process the bilingual data to generate a modified annotated bilingual segment pair that can be used by the training engine 206 to generate translation rules. The modification engine 204 is configured to re-label, re-structure, and/or re-align a previously generated annotated bilingual segment pair. The modification engine 204 may receive the annotated bilingual segment pair from the bilingual data engine 202, modify the annotated bilingual segment pair, and output a modified annotated bilingual segment pair to the bilingual engine 202 and/or the training engine 206. The modification engine 204 is discussed in greater detail herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 3.


The training engine 206 is configured to receive the modified annotated bilingual segment pair, compose translation rules, and output the translation rules. The translation rules may be composed according to systems and methods known to those skilled in the art and may comprise composed rules and/or minimal rules. The translation rules, according to some embodiments, may be generated using systems and methods similar to those used by the modification engine 204 to generate derived rules.



FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a modification engine 204 according to various embodiments. The modification engine 204 comprises a processing module 302, a derivation module 304, a training module 306, and a distillation module 308. The modules may be implemented as hardware, software, and/or firmware as known to those skilled in the art.


The processing module 302 is configured to receive an annotated bilingual segment pair and process the annotated bilingual segment pair. As a result of the processing, a plurality of trees is generated. In some embodiments, the plurality of trees is generated as a target forest as further described herein, at least, in connection with FIG. 4. The trees in the plurality of trees each represent an alternative annotated bilingual segment pair or alignment rule sequence that can be used to express a relationship between the words in the bilingual segment pair. As part of the processing, the processing module 302 may re-label, re-structure, and/or re-align the annotated bilingual segment pair. Re-labeling the annotated bilingual segment pair includes changing the labels at one or more of the nodes in the tree. Re-structuring includes adding parent nodes to the tree. In some embodiments, the tree may be binarized. Re-aligning the annotated bilingual segment pair includes generating translation rules based on the initial alignments in the annotated bilingual segment pair.


The derivation module 304 is configured to derive a derivation forest from the target forest. The target forest comprises the plurality of trees represented as a single large tree that can be decoded to derive rule sequences. Each tree in the derivation forest comprises a set of rule sequences derived from a tree in the target forest. The derived rule sequences may be generated according to an extraction algorithm adapted to receive a target forest instead of a tree as is apparent to those skilled in the art and as discussed herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 4.


The training module 306 is configured to select one of the derived rule sequences in the derivation forest based on a probability, such as a probability that the derived rule sequence may likely result in a more accurate translation than the other rule sequences in the derivation forest. The selection may be made based on an expectation-maximization algorithm.


The distillation module 308 is configured to distill a modified annotated bilingual segment pair from the selected rule sequence. The modified annotated bilingual segment pair may be utilized to produce a translation rule used to translate documents. The translation rules that are derived from the modified annotated bilingual segment pairs are thus more likely, when combined with other translation rules from other annotated bilingual segment pairs, to result in more accurate or fluent translations in the machine translation system. Although the modification engine 204 is illustrated as having the processing module 302, the derivation module 304, the training module 306, and the distillation module 308, fewer or more modules may comprise the modification engine 204 and still fall within the scope of various embodiments.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary process 400 for modifying annotated bilingual segment pairs according to various embodiments. The process 400 may be performed by the modification engine 204, according to some embodiments. For the sake of illustration, the process 400 includes sub-processes for re-labeling, re-structuring, and re-aligning the annotated bilingual segment pair. It is understood that various embodiments may comprise performing any combination comprising one or more of these sub-processes. According to some embodiments, the actual combination and order may be previously selected by a user. Further, the process 400 may be performed multiple times using a different sub-process or combination of sub-processes each time. The process 400 begins when an annotated bilingual segment pair is received in an exemplary step 402.


In an exemplary optional step 404, if the annotated bilingual segment pair is re-labeled, a forest comprising re-labeled trees is generated. Re-labeling comprises combining two or more types of syntactic categories into one category and/or dividing a syntactic category into two or more syntactic categories. According to exemplary embodiments, step 404 may be performed multiple times to generate a plurality of the re-labeled trees. Each of the re-labeled trees is associated with a separate set of syntactic category combinations and/or divisions. In some embodiments, the target tree may be re-labeled according to a technique as discussed herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 5. The plurality of re-labeled trees may be generated as a target forest as described herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 7 and as will be apparent to those skilled in the art.


In an exemplary optional step 406, a forest comprising re-structured trees may be generated from the target tree. Re-structuring may be performed by generating new parent nodes to the target tree. In some embodiments, only one new parent node will be formed at a time. In some embodiments, the target tree may be re-structured according to a binarization technique as discussed herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 6.


In the step 406, to generate a forest, a parallel binarization technique may be used. The forest comprises additive forest nodes and multiplicative forest nodes. A multiplicative node corresponds to a tree node in an unbinarized tree. The multiplicative node may then generate two or more additive nodes corresponding to the nodes in the unbinarized tree. The additive nodes may further comprise a leaf in the binarized tree and/or a multiplicative node. A forest generated using a parallel binarization technique is further discussed herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 7.


In an exemplary optional step 408, to re-align the annotated bilingual segment pair, multi-level tree-to-string translation rules are extracted based on the alignments in the received annotated bilingual segment pair. Extracting the translation rules is discussed further herein in connection with, at least, FIG. 8.


In an exemplary step 410, a derivation forest of rule sequences is built. The derivation forest may be built according to various techniques based on the combination of re-labeling, restructuring, and/or re-aligning techniques that are performed. A derivation forest comprises a plurality of rule sequences represented as trees that correspond to the target forest and/or the extracted translation rules.


If re-labeling and/or re-structuring are performed, the rule sequences may be extracted from the target forest. A forest-based extraction algorithm is configured to receive a target forest, a source string, and an alignment and output a derivation forest comprising translation rules.


In exemplary embodiments, the forest-based extraction algorithm is configured to act on two conditions. In a first condition, if an additive target forest node is reached, the multiplicative target forest nodes that are children of the additive node are processed to recursively extract rules according to a second condition to generate multiplicative derivation forest nodes. The new multiplicative derivative forest nodes are children of the additive derivative forest nodes.


In the second condition, if a multiplicative derivative forest node is reached, rules may be extracted. In some embodiments, the rules may be extracted according to the techniques disclosed in Galley et al. “Scalable Inference and Training of Context Rich Syntactic Models.” Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 2006. After the rules are extracted, the process returns to condition 1 to form a derivation forest based on the nodes of the newly-extracted rules to generate additive derivation forest nodes.


If re-aligning is performed, the rule sequences may be extracted from the initial alignments in exemplary step 408. Thus, in exemplary step 410, the derivation forest may be constructed independent of the initial alignments. In exemplary embodiments, derivation forests may be built from a forced-decoding algorithm. For example, a standard CKY-style decoder used in machine translation may be configured to limit its search to the training pair. An exemplary CKY-style decoder is described in Galley et al. “Scalable Inference and Training of Context Rich Syntactic Models.” Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 2006.


In an exemplary step 412, one or more rule sequences in the derivation forest are selected. In some embodiments, all of the rule sequences may be selected. The rule sequences may be selected using an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. The EM algorithm selects rule sequences so as to maximize the probability of the entire training corpus comprising many annotated bilingual segment pairs. Thus, the EM algorithm may prefer to assign probabilities such that one rule or rule sequence is used many times rather than several different rules for the same situation.


If the annotated bilingual segment pair is re-labeled and/or re-aligned, the EM algorithm may be used to generate a set of probabilities based on which the rile sequence can be selected. A selected rule sequence, or a selected binarization, of a tree may be calculated according to the formula:







β
*

=



arg





max

β



p


(


τ
β

,
f
,

a
|

θ
*



)








where β* is the binarization that results in the highest likelihood of the re-labeled or restructured training data comprising (τβ,f,a)-tuples. Other formulas or algorithms apparent to those skilled in the art may be used. In the tuples, τβ represents a generated target tree, f represent a word or phrase in the source string, and a represents the alignment associated with f. Selected parameters or rule probabilities, θ*, are obtained such that:







θ
*

=



arg





max

θ



p


(

τ
,
f
,
a

)










θ
*

=



arg





max

θ



p


(

β
,
τ
,
f
,
a

)










θ
*

=



arg





max

θ



p


(


τ
β

,
f
,
a

)








where (β,τ)=τβ if bar notation is used to label the new intermediate nodes added using binarization. To store the binarizations, a packed forest may be used. For model estimation, an inside-outside algorithm may be used. The probability p(τβ,f,a) of a (τβ,f,a)-tuple can be calculated by aggregating the rule probabilities p(r) in each derivation, ω, in the set of all derivations, Ω, using the equation:







p


(


τ
β

,
f
,
a

)


=


1


Ω








ω

Ω







r

ω








p


(
r
)










In some embodiments, the probability p(τβ,f,a) may be decomposed using minimal rules during running of the EM algorithm.


In exemplary embodiments in which the annotated bilingual segment pair is re-aligned, EM algorithms described in U.S. nonprovisional patent application Ser. No. 11/082,216 filed Mar. 15, 2005 and entitled “Training Tree Transducers for Probabilistic Operations” may be used.


In exemplary step 414, the modified annotated bilingual segment pair may be distilled from the one or more selected rule sequences. The selected rule sequences may comprise Viterbi derivations and/or Viterbi alignments. From the rule sequences a modified annotated bilingual segment pair is generated as is known to those skilled in the art. The modified annotated bilingual segment pair may then be used to train an MT system.



FIG. 5 is a diagram of an example of re-labeling an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments. Each node in the tree in the annotated bilingual segment pair is labeled with a syntactic category. The syntactic category may be, for example, sentence (S), noun phrase (NP), noun phrase-complement (NP-C), verb phrase (VP), adverb phrase (ADVP), or the like. Re-labeling comprises combining two or more types of syntactic categories into one category and/or dividing a syntactic category into two or more syntactic categories.


A first syntactic category may be combined with another syntactic category. For example, categories may be combined if the first syntactic category rarely occurs or the syntax of source language renders the category irrelevant. In these embodiments, the label may be changed to an existing label or a new label may be created for the combined category. For example, in FIG. 5, the syntactic category “NP-C” is combined with the category “NP.” The syntactic label “NP” is now used to indicate both the syntactic categories noun phrase and noun phrase-complement.


A syntactic category may be added if a category is broadly defined. For example, the syntactic category “verb phrase” may include, in an English tree, both non-finite verbs such as “to go” and “going,” and finite verbs such as “goes” and “went.” In this instance, the category “finite verbs” (VP-FIN) may be added, as depicted in FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the syntactic category “VP” may be preserved.



FIG. 6 is a diagram of an example of re-structuring an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments. More specifically, FIG. 6 depicts a diagram of a tree that has been right-binarized. In right-binarization, a new node is formed over the rightmost child and dominates all of the children except the furthest left child. The process is then repeated with respect to the children of the new node until only two children remain under the newest node. In other embodiments, left-binarization may be performed in which a new node is formed over the leftmost child as will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Parallel binarization includes performing both left and right binarization.



FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example of a forest comprising additive (⊕) and multiplicative ({circle around (x)}) nodes. These nodes are added by first recursively parallel binarizing child nodes in the tree to generate additive nodes at each of the child nodes in the generated trees. Next, the nodes are right-binarized by adding an intermediate tree node. The intermediate tree node is recursively binarized to generate an additive binarization forest node. A multiplicative forest node is added as the parent of the intermediate tree node and the child. Then the nodes are left-binarized by adding an intermediate tree node. The intermediate tree node is recursively binarized to generate an additive binarization forest node. A multiplicative forest node is added as the parent of the intermediate tree node and the child. Finally, an additive node is added as the parent of the added multiplicative forest nodes.



FIG. 8 is a diagram of an example of re-aligning an annotated bilingual segment pair according to various embodiments. The annotated bilingual segment pair 902 may comprise a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair, a tree-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair, or a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair. In the embodiment shown, the annotated bilingual segment pair 902 comprises a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair. The alignments in the annotated bilingual segment pairs may have been generated without regard to syntactic structure and/or the use of a tree and, therefore, may be inaccurate. To extract translation rules from the alignments, an alignment algorithm, such as the algorithm described in Galley et al. “What's in a Translation Rule” HLT-NAACL 2004: Main Proceedings, pages 273-280, may be used. In embodiments where the annotated bilingual segment pair is re-aligned, a target forest may not be generated.



FIG. 9 is a diagram of a process 900 for deriving translation rules from a received annotated bilingual segment pair. In the process 900, an annotated bilingual segment pair 902 is received. The annotated bilingual segment pair 902 may comprise a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair, a tree-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair, or a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair. In the embodiment shown, the annotated bilingual segment pair 902 comprises a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair. Next, based on the received annotated bilingual segment pair 902, a set of rule sequences 904 are generated. According to some embodiments, the rule sequences may be generated by re-labeling, re-structuring, and/or re-aligning the received annotated bilingual segment pair 902. From the rule sequences 904, a modified annotated bilingual segment pair 906 is generated. The modified annotated bilingual segment pair 906 may then be used to generate translation rules 908 that can be used to train an MT system.


The above-described functions and components can be comprised of instructions that are stored on a storage medium. The instructions can be retrieved and executed by a processor. Some examples of instructions are software, program code, and firmware. Some examples of storage medium are memory devices, tape, disks, integrated circuits, and servers. The instructions are operational when executed by the processor to direct the processor to operate in accord with various embodiments. Those skilled in the art are familiar with instructions, processor(s), and storage medium.


While various embodiments have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. The scope of the present disclosure is in no way limited to the languages used to describe exemplary embodiments. Thus, the breadth and scope of a preferred embodiment should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments.

Claims
  • 1. A method for generating a tree to string annotated bilingual segment pair, the method comprising: receiving a first annotated bilingual segment pair comprising two or more words in a source language, two or more words in a target language, and an alignment between the two or more words in the source language and the two or more words in the target language;processing, by a computer, the first annotated bilingual segment pair to generate a target forest including a plurality of trees, each tree representing an alternative annotated bilingual segment pair including an alignment rule sequence that can be used to express a relationship between the words in the bilingual segment pair, the processing of the first annotated bilingual segment pair by the computer including re-labeling, re-structuring, and re-aligning the first annotated bilingual segment pair;building a derivation forest from the target forest, the derivation forest including a plurality of trees;deriving, by the computer, a plurality of rule sequences for the plurality of trees in the derivation forest, each tree in the derivation forest including a set of rule sequences derived from a tree in the target forest;selecting one of the derived rule sequences based on a probability that the selected rule sequence is more likely than the other derived rule sequences, using an expectation-maximization algorithm;generating, by the computer, a second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the selected rule sequence, wherein the second annotated bilingual segment pair has an alignment; andextracting translation rules from the second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the alignment of the second annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 2. The method recited in claim 1, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair comprises re-structuring a first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair or re-aligning the first annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 3. The method recited in claim 1, wherein re-labeling syntactic structures comprises combining two or more of the syntactic structures.
  • 4. The method recited in claim 1, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair further comprises: re-structuring a first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair to generate the plurality of the trees.
  • 5. The method recited in claim 4, wherein re-structuring the first tree comprises adding a new parent node to include a subset of existing nodes.
  • 6. The method recited in claim 1, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair further comprises: extracting translation rules from the first annotated bilingual segment pair based on the alignment, wherein the plurality of the trees includes the translation rules.
  • 7. The method recited in claim 1, further comprising: training a translation engine using the second annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 8. The method recited in claim 1, wherein selecting one of the rule sequences comprises summing weights associated with at least a portion of the plurality of the trees.
  • 9. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 10. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a tree-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 11. The method recited in claim 1, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 12. A system for generating a tree to string annotated bilingual segment pair, the system comprising: a processor configured to: receive a first annotated bilingual segment pair to generate a plurality of trees, the first annotated bilingual segment pair comprising two or more words in a source language, two or more words in a target language, and an initial alignment between the two or more words in the source language and the two or more words in the target language, andprocess the first annotated bilingual segment pair, the processing including: re-labeling, restructuring, and re-aligning the first annotated bilingual segment pair, to generatea plurality of target trees, each tree representing an alternative annotated bilingual segment pair including an alignment rule sequence that can be used to express a relationship between the words in the bilingual segment pair;a derivation module configured to derive a plurality of derivation trees from the plurality of the target trees, each derivation tree including a rule sequence derived from a target tree;a training module configured to select one of the derived rule sequences, based on a probability that the selected rule sequence is more likely than the other derived rule sequences, using an expectation-maximization algorithm; anda distillation module configured to generate a second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the selected rule sequence, and produce translation rules from the second annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 13. The system recited in claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to re-structure a first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair or re-align the first annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 14. The system recited in claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to re-structure a first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 15. The system recited in claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to extract translation rules from the first annotated bilingual segment pair based on the alignment.
  • 16. The system recited in claim 12, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 17. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor for performing a method for generating an annotated bilingual segment pair, the method comprising: receiving a first annotated bilingual segment pair comprising a source string including two or more words in a source language, a target phrase represented as a first tree that includes two or more words in a target language, and an alignment between the source string and the first tree;processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair, the processing of the first annotated bilingual pair including: re-labeling one or more nodes of a tree representing the first annotated bilingual segment pair,re-structuring the tree representing the annotated bilingual segment pair, including adding parent nodes to the tree,re-aligning the first annotated bilingual segment pair, andgenerating a target forest including a plurality of target trees based on the re-labeling, re-structuring, and re-aligning;building a derivation forest of a plurality of derivation trees based on the target forest, each derivation tree representing a rule sequence that corresponds to target tree;deriving a plurality of rule sequences from the plurality of the derivation trees;calculating a probability using an expectation-maximization algorithm that the derived rule sequence is correct for each of the derived rule sequences;selecting the rule sequences having the highest probability;generating a second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the selected rule sequence, wherein the second annotated bilingual segment pair has an alignment; andextracting translation rules from the second annotated bilingual segment pair based on the alignment of the second annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 18. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair comprises re-structuring the first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair or re-aligning the first annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 19. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein re-labeling syntactic structures comprises combining two or more of the syntactic structures.
  • 20. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair further comprises: re-structuring the first tree in the first annotated bilingual segment pair to generate the plurality of the trees.
  • 21. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 20, wherein re-structuring the first tree comprises adding a new parent node to include a subset of existing nodes.
  • 22. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein processing the first annotated bilingual segment pair further comprises: extracting translation rules from the first annotated bilingual segment pair based on the alignment, wherein the plurality of the trees includes the translation rules.
  • 23. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: training a translation engine using the second annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 24. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein selecting one or more of the rule sequences comprises summing weights associated with at least a portion of the plurality of the derivation trees.
  • 25. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a tree-to-string annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 26. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a tree-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair.
  • 27. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium recited in claim 17, wherein the first annotated bilingual segment pair and the second annotated bilingual segment pair both comprise a string-to-tree annotated bilingual segment pair.
GOVERNMENT INTERESTS

The research and development described in this application were partially supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Contract No. HR0011-06-C-0022 and by the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Project No. 00-00-6945. The U.S. government may have certain rights in the claimed inventions.

US Referenced Citations (394)
Number Name Date Kind
4502128 Okajima et al. Feb 1985 A
4599691 Sakaki et al. Jul 1986 A
4615002 Innes Sep 1986 A
4661924 Okamoto et al. Apr 1987 A
4787038 Doi et al. Nov 1988 A
4791587 Doi Dec 1988 A
4800522 Miyao et al. Jan 1989 A
4814987 Miyao et al. Mar 1989 A
4942526 Okajima et al. Jul 1990 A
4980829 Okajima et al. Dec 1990 A
5020112 Chou May 1991 A
5088038 Tanaka et al. Feb 1992 A
5091876 Kumano et al. Feb 1992 A
5146405 Church Sep 1992 A
5167504 Mann Dec 1992 A
5181163 Nakajima et al. Jan 1993 A
5212730 Wheatley et al. May 1993 A
5218537 Hemphill et al. Jun 1993 A
5220503 Suzuki et al. Jun 1993 A
5267156 Nomiyama Nov 1993 A
5268839 Kaji Dec 1993 A
5295068 Nishino et al. Mar 1994 A
5302132 Corder Apr 1994 A
5311429 Tominaga May 1994 A
5387104 Corder Feb 1995 A
5408410 Kaji Apr 1995 A
5432948 Davis et al. Jul 1995 A
5442546 Kaji et al. Aug 1995 A
5477450 Takeda et al. Dec 1995 A
5477451 Brown et al. Dec 1995 A
5495413 Kutsumi et al. Feb 1996 A
5497319 Chong et al. Mar 1996 A
5510981 Berger et al. Apr 1996 A
5528491 Kuno et al. Jun 1996 A
5535120 Chong et al. Jul 1996 A
5541836 Church et al. Jul 1996 A
5541837 Fushimoto Jul 1996 A
5548508 Nagami Aug 1996 A
5644774 Fukumochi et al. Jul 1997 A
5675815 Yamauchi et al. Oct 1997 A
5687383 Nakayama et al. Nov 1997 A
5696980 Brew Dec 1997 A
5724593 Hargrave, III et al. Mar 1998 A
5752052 Richardson et al. May 1998 A
5754972 Baker et al. May 1998 A
5761631 Nasukawa Jun 1998 A
5761689 Rayson et al. Jun 1998 A
5768603 Brown et al. Jun 1998 A
5779486 Ho et al. Jul 1998 A
5781884 Pereira et al. Jul 1998 A
5794178 Caid et al. Aug 1998 A
5805832 Brown et al. Sep 1998 A
5806032 Sproat Sep 1998 A
5819265 Ravin et al. Oct 1998 A
5826219 Kutsumi Oct 1998 A
5826220 Takeda et al. Oct 1998 A
5845143 Yamauchi et al. Dec 1998 A
5848385 Poznanski et al. Dec 1998 A
5848386 Motoyama Dec 1998 A
5855015 Shoham Dec 1998 A
5864788 Kutsumi Jan 1999 A
5867811 O'Donoghue Feb 1999 A
5870706 Alshawi Feb 1999 A
5893134 O'Donoghue et al. Apr 1999 A
5903858 Saraki May 1999 A
5907821 Kaji et al. May 1999 A
5909681 Passera et al. Jun 1999 A
5930746 Ting Jul 1999 A
5966685 Flanagan et al. Oct 1999 A
5966686 Heidorn et al. Oct 1999 A
5983169 Kozma Nov 1999 A
5987402 Murata et al. Nov 1999 A
5987404 Della Pietra et al. Nov 1999 A
5991710 Papineni et al. Nov 1999 A
5995922 Penteroudakis et al. Nov 1999 A
6018617 Sweitzer et al. Jan 2000 A
6031984 Walser Feb 2000 A
6032111 Mohri Feb 2000 A
6047252 Kumano et al. Apr 2000 A
6064819 Franssen et al. May 2000 A
6064951 Park et al. May 2000 A
6073143 Nishikawa et al. Jun 2000 A
6077085 Parry et al. Jun 2000 A
6092034 McCarley et al. Jul 2000 A
6119077 Shinozaki Sep 2000 A
6119078 Kobayakawa et al. Sep 2000 A
6131082 Hargrave, III et al. Oct 2000 A
6161082 Goldberg et al. Dec 2000 A
6182014 Kenyon et al. Jan 2001 B1
6182027 Nasukawa et al. Jan 2001 B1
6205456 Nakao Mar 2001 B1
6206700 Brown et al. Mar 2001 B1
6223150 Duan et al. Apr 2001 B1
6233544 Alshawi May 2001 B1
6233545 Datig May 2001 B1
6233546 Datig May 2001 B1
6236958 Lange et al. May 2001 B1
6269351 Black Jul 2001 B1
6275789 Moser et al. Aug 2001 B1
6278967 Akers et al. Aug 2001 B1
6278969 King et al. Aug 2001 B1
6285978 Bernth et al. Sep 2001 B1
6289302 Kuo Sep 2001 B1
6304841 Berger et al. Oct 2001 B1
6311152 Bai et al. Oct 2001 B1
6317708 Witbrock et al. Nov 2001 B1
6327568 Joost Dec 2001 B1
6330529 Ito Dec 2001 B1
6330530 Horiguchi et al. Dec 2001 B1
6356864 Foltz et al. Mar 2002 B1
6360196 Poznanski et al. Mar 2002 B1
6389387 Poznanski et al. May 2002 B1
6393388 Franz et al. May 2002 B1
6393389 Chanod et al. May 2002 B1
6415250 van den Akker Jul 2002 B1
6460015 Hetherington et al. Oct 2002 B1
6470306 Pringle et al. Oct 2002 B1
6473729 Gastaldo et al. Oct 2002 B1
6473896 Hicken et al. Oct 2002 B1
6480698 Ho et al. Nov 2002 B2
6490549 Ulicny et al. Dec 2002 B1
6498921 Ho et al. Dec 2002 B1
6502064 Miyahira et al. Dec 2002 B1
6529865 Duan et al. Mar 2003 B1
6535842 Roche et al. Mar 2003 B1
6587844 Mohri Jul 2003 B1
6604101 Chan et al. Aug 2003 B1
6609087 Miller et al. Aug 2003 B1
6647364 Yumura et al. Nov 2003 B1
6691279 Yoden et al. Feb 2004 B2
6745161 Arnold et al. Jun 2004 B1
6745176 Probert, Jr. et al. Jun 2004 B2
6757646 Marchisio Jun 2004 B2
6778949 Duan et al. Aug 2004 B2
6782356 Lopke Aug 2004 B1
6810374 Kang Oct 2004 B2
6848080 Lee et al. Jan 2005 B1
6857022 Scanlan Feb 2005 B1
6885985 Hull Apr 2005 B2
6901361 Portilla May 2005 B1
6904402 Wang et al. Jun 2005 B1
6910003 Arnold et al. Jun 2005 B1
6952665 Shimomura et al. Oct 2005 B1
6983239 Epstein Jan 2006 B1
6993473 Cartus Jan 2006 B2
6996518 Jones et al. Feb 2006 B2
6996520 Levin Feb 2006 B2
6999925 Fischer et al. Feb 2006 B2
7013262 Tokuda et al. Mar 2006 B2
7016827 Ramaswamy et al. Mar 2006 B1
7016977 Dunsmoir et al. Mar 2006 B1
7024351 Wang Apr 2006 B2
7031911 Zhou et al. Apr 2006 B2
7050964 Menzes et al. May 2006 B2
7085708 Manson Aug 2006 B2
7089493 Hatori et al. Aug 2006 B2
7103531 Moore Sep 2006 B2
7107204 Liu et al. Sep 2006 B1
7107215 Ghali Sep 2006 B2
7113903 Riccardi et al. Sep 2006 B1
7143036 Weise Nov 2006 B2
7146358 Gravano et al. Dec 2006 B1
7149688 Schalkwyk Dec 2006 B2
7171348 Scanlan Jan 2007 B2
7174289 Sukehiro Feb 2007 B2
7177792 Knight et al. Feb 2007 B2
7191115 Moore Mar 2007 B2
7194403 Okura et al. Mar 2007 B2
7197451 Carter et al. Mar 2007 B1
7206736 Moore Apr 2007 B2
7209875 Quirk et al. Apr 2007 B2
7219051 Moore May 2007 B2
7239998 Xun Jul 2007 B2
7249012 Moore Jul 2007 B2
7249013 Al-Onaizan et al. Jul 2007 B2
7283950 Pournasseh et al. Oct 2007 B2
7295962 Marcu Nov 2007 B2
7295963 Richardson et al. Nov 2007 B2
7302392 Thenthiruperai et al. Nov 2007 B1
7319949 Pinkham Jan 2008 B2
7328156 Meliksetian et al. Feb 2008 B2
7340388 Soricut et al. Mar 2008 B2
7346487 Li Mar 2008 B2
7346493 Ringger et al. Mar 2008 B2
7349839 Moore Mar 2008 B2
7349845 Coffman et al. Mar 2008 B2
7356457 Pinkham et al. Apr 2008 B2
7369998 Sarich et al. May 2008 B2
7373291 Garst May 2008 B2
7383542 Richardson et al. Jun 2008 B2
7389222 Langmead et al. Jun 2008 B1
7389234 Schmid et al. Jun 2008 B2
7403890 Roushar Jul 2008 B2
7409332 Moore Aug 2008 B2
7409333 Wilkinson et al. Aug 2008 B2
7447623 Appleby Nov 2008 B2
7454326 Marcu et al. Nov 2008 B2
7496497 Liu Feb 2009 B2
7533013 Marcu May 2009 B2
7536295 Cancedda et al. May 2009 B2
7546235 Brockett et al. Jun 2009 B2
7552053 Gao et al. Jun 2009 B2
7565281 Appleby Jul 2009 B2
7574347 Wang Aug 2009 B2
7580828 D'Agostini Aug 2009 B2
7580830 Al-Onaizan et al. Aug 2009 B2
7587307 Cancedda et al. Sep 2009 B2
7620538 Marcu et al. Nov 2009 B2
7620632 Andrews Nov 2009 B2
7624005 Koehn et al. Nov 2009 B2
7624020 Yamada et al. Nov 2009 B2
7627479 Travieso et al. Dec 2009 B2
7680646 Lux-Pogodalla et al. Mar 2010 B2
7689405 Marcu Mar 2010 B2
7698124 Menezes et al. Apr 2010 B2
7698125 Graehl et al. Apr 2010 B2
7707025 Whitelock Apr 2010 B2
7711545 Koehn May 2010 B2
7716037 Precoda et al. May 2010 B2
7801720 Satake et al. Sep 2010 B2
7813918 Muslea et al. Oct 2010 B2
7822596 Elgazzar et al. Oct 2010 B2
7925494 Cheng et al. Apr 2011 B2
7957953 Moore Jun 2011 B2
7974833 Soricut et al. Jul 2011 B2
8060360 He Nov 2011 B2
8145472 Shore et al. Mar 2012 B2
8214196 Yamada et al. Jul 2012 B2
8234106 Marcu et al. Jul 2012 B2
8244519 Bicici et al. Aug 2012 B2
8265923 Chatterjee et al. Sep 2012 B2
8275600 Bilac et al. Sep 2012 B2
8296127 Marcu et al. Oct 2012 B2
8315850 Furuuchi et al. Nov 2012 B2
8380486 Soricut et al. Feb 2013 B2
8433556 Fraser et al. Apr 2013 B2
8468149 Lung et al. Jun 2013 B1
8548794 Koehn Oct 2013 B2
8600728 Knight et al. Dec 2013 B2
8615389 Marcu Dec 2013 B1
8655642 Fux et al. Feb 2014 B2
8666725 Och Mar 2014 B2
8676563 Soricut et al. Mar 2014 B2
20010009009 Iizuka Jul 2001 A1
20010029455 Chin et al. Oct 2001 A1
20020002451 Sukehiro Jan 2002 A1
20020013693 Fuji Jan 2002 A1
20020040292 Marcu Apr 2002 A1
20020046018 Marcu et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020046262 Heilig et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020059566 Delcambre et al. May 2002 A1
20020078091 Vu et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020083029 Chun et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020087313 Lee et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020099744 Coden et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020111788 Kimpara Aug 2002 A1
20020111789 Hull Aug 2002 A1
20020111967 Nagase Aug 2002 A1
20020143537 Ozawa et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020152063 Tokieda et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020169592 Aityan Nov 2002 A1
20020188438 Knight et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188439 Marcu Dec 2002 A1
20020198699 Greene et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020198701 Moore Dec 2002 A1
20020198713 Franz et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030009322 Marcu Jan 2003 A1
20030023423 Yamada et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030040900 D'Agostini Feb 2003 A1
20030061022 Reinders Mar 2003 A1
20030144832 Harris Jul 2003 A1
20030154071 Shreve Aug 2003 A1
20030158723 Masuichi et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030176995 Sukehiro Sep 2003 A1
20030182102 Corston-Oliver et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030191626 Al-Onaizan et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030204400 Marcu et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030216905 Chelba et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030233222 Soricut et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040006560 Chan et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015342 Garst Jan 2004 A1
20040024581 Koehn et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030551 Marcu et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040035055 Zhu et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040044530 Moore Mar 2004 A1
20040059708 Dean et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040068411 Scanlan Apr 2004 A1
20040098247 Moore May 2004 A1
20040102956 Levin May 2004 A1
20040102957 Levin May 2004 A1
20040111253 Luo et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040115597 Butt Jun 2004 A1
20040122656 Abir Jun 2004 A1
20040167768 Travieso et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040167784 Travieso et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040193401 Ringger et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040230418 Kitamura Nov 2004 A1
20040237044 Travieso et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040260532 Richardson et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050021322 Richardson et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021517 Marchisio Jan 2005 A1
20050026131 Elzinga et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050033565 Koehn Feb 2005 A1
20050038643 Koehn Feb 2005 A1
20050055199 Ryzchachkin et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050055217 Sumita et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060160 Roh et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050075858 Pournasseh et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050086226 Krachman Apr 2005 A1
20050102130 Quirk et al. May 2005 A1
20050125218 Rajput et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050149315 Flanagan et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050171757 Appleby Aug 2005 A1
20050204002 Friend Sep 2005 A1
20050228640 Aue et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050228642 Mau et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050228643 Munteanu et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050234701 Graehl et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050267738 Wilkinson et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060004563 Campbell et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015320 Och Jan 2006 A1
20060018541 Chelba et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060020448 Chelba et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060041428 Fritsch et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060095248 Menezes et al. May 2006 A1
20060111891 Menezes et al. May 2006 A1
20060111892 Menezes et al. May 2006 A1
20060111896 Menezes et al. May 2006 A1
20060142995 Knight et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060150069 Chang Jul 2006 A1
20060167984 Fellenstein et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060190241 Goutte et al. Aug 2006 A1
20070016400 Soricutt et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016401 Ehsani et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070033001 Muslea et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050182 Sneddon et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070078654 Moore Apr 2007 A1
20070078845 Scott et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070083357 Moore et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070094169 Yamada et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070112555 Lavi et al. May 2007 A1
20070112556 Lavi et al. May 2007 A1
20070122792 Galley et al. May 2007 A1
20070168202 Changela et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070168450 Prajapat et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070180373 Bauman et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070219774 Quirk et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070250306 Marcu et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070265825 Cancedda et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070265826 Chen et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070269775 Andreev et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070294076 Shore et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080052061 Kim et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080065478 Kohlmeier et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080109209 Fraser et al. May 2008 A1
20080114583 Al-Onaizan et al. May 2008 A1
20080154581 Lavi et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080183555 Walk Jul 2008 A1
20080215418 Kolve et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080249760 Marcu et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080270109 Och Oct 2008 A1
20080270112 Shimohata Oct 2008 A1
20080281578 Kumaran et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080307481 Panje Dec 2008 A1
20090076792 Lawson-Tancred Mar 2009 A1
20090083023 Foster et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090106017 D'Agostini Apr 2009 A1
20090119091 Sarig May 2009 A1
20090125497 Jiang et al. May 2009 A1
20090234634 Chen et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090241115 Raffo et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090326912 Ueffing Dec 2009 A1
20090326913 Simard et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100005086 Wang et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100017293 Lung et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100042398 Marcu et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100138210 Seo et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100138213 Bicici et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100174524 Koehn Jul 2010 A1
20110029300 Marcu et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110066643 Cooper et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110082683 Soricut et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110082684 Soricut et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110191410 Refuah et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110225104 Soricut et al. Sep 2011 A1
20120096019 Manickam et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120253783 Castelli et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120265711 Assche Oct 2012 A1
20120278302 Choudhury et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120323554 Hopkins et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130103381 Assche Apr 2013 A1
20130238310 Viswanathan Sep 2013 A1
20140006003 Soricut et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140019114 Travieso et al. Jan 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (27)
Number Date Country
2408819 Nov 2006 CA
2475857 Dec 2008 CA
2480398 Jun 2011 CA
1488338 Apr 2010 DE
202005022113.9 Feb 2014 DE
0469884 Feb 1992 EP
0715265 Jun 1996 EP
0933712 Aug 1999 EP
0933712 Jan 2001 EP
1488338 Sep 2004 EP
1488338 Apr 2010 EP
1488338 Apr 2010 ES
1488338 Apr 2010 FR
1488338 Apr 2010 GB
1072987 Feb 2006 HK
1072987 Sep 2010 HK
07244666 Sep 1995 JP
10011447 Jan 1998 JP
11272672 Oct 1999 JP
2004501429 Jan 2004 JP
2004062726 Feb 2004 JP
2008101837 May 2008 JP
03083710 Oct 2003 WO
WO03083709 Oct 2003 WO
WO2007056563 May 2007 WO
WO2011041675 Apr 2011 WO
WO2011162947 Dec 2011 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (261)
Entry
Galley et al “What's in a translation rule?”, 2004, In Proc. of HLT/NAACL '04, pp. 1-8.
Galley et al, “Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation Models”, Jul. 2006, In Proc. of the 21st Internaltional Conf. on Computational Linguistics, pp. 961-968.
Zhang et al, “Synchronous Binarization for Machine Translations”, Jun. 4-9 2006, In Proc. of the Human language Technology Conference of the north American Chapter of the ACL, pp. 256-263.
Klein et al, Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing, Jul. 2003, In Proc. of the 41st Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 423-430.
Huang et al “Relabeling Syntax Trees to Improve Syntax-Based Machine Translation Quality”, Jun. 4-9 2006, In Proc. of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pp. 240-247.
Petrov et al, “Learning Accurate, compact, and Interpretable Tree Annotation”, Jun. 4-9 2006, In Proc. of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pp. 433-440.
Ambati, “Dependency Structure Trees in Syntax Based Machine Translation”, spring 2008 report <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/˜vamshi/publications/DependencyMT—report.pdf>, pp. 1-18.
Eisner, “Learning non-isomorphic Tree Mappings for Machine Translation”, 2003, In Proc. of the 41st Meeting of the ACL, pp. 205-208.
Zhang et al, “Synchronous binarization for machine translation” Jun. 5-6, 2006, In Proc. HLT-NAACL 2006, pp. 256-263.
Huang et al “A syntax-directed translator with extended domain of locality”, Jun. 9, 2006, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computationally Hard Problems and Joint Inference in Speech and Language Processing, pp. 1-8, New York City, New York. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Melamed et al, “Statistical machine translation by generalized parsing”, 2005, Technical Report 05-001, Proteus Project, New York University, 2005. http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/pubs/.
Gallet et al, “Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation Models”, Jul. 2006, In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 961-968.
Huang et al “Statistical syntax-directed translation with extended domain of locality”, Jun. 9, 2006, In Proceedings of AMTA, pp. 1-8.
Ueffing et al., “Using Pos Information for Statistical Machine Translation into Morphologically Rich Languages,” In EACL, 2003: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 347-354. (NPL0228).
Frederking et al., “Three Heads are Better Than One,” In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Stuttgart, Germany, 1994, pp. 95-100. (NPL0229).
Och et al., “Discriminative Training and Maximum Entropy Models for Statistical Machine Translation,” In Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia, PA, 2002. (NPL0230).
Yasuda et al., “Automatic Machine Translation Selection Scheme to Output the Best Result,” Proc of LREC, 2002, pp. 525-528. (NPL0231).
“Elhadad, Michael, “Using Argumentation to Control Lexical Choice: A Functional Unification Implementation”,1992, Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University.”
“Elhadad. M., and Robin, J., “SURGE: a Comprehensive Plug-in Syntactic Realization Component for TextGeneration”, 1999 (available at http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/-elhadad/pub.html).”
Fleming, Michael et al., “Mixed-Initiative Translation of Web Pages,” AMTA 2000, LNAI 1934, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2000, pp. 25-29.
Och, Franz Josef and Hermann Ney: “Improved Statistical Alignment Models” ACLOO:Proc. of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingustics, ′Online! Oct. 2-6, 2000, pp. 440-447, XP002279144 Hong Kong, China Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://www-i6.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Colleagues/och/ACLOO.ps> retrieved on May 6, 2004! abstract.
Fuji, Ren and Hongchi Shi, “Parallel Machine Translation: Principles and Practice,” Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, 2001 Proceedings, Seventh IEEE Int'l Conference, pp. 249-259, 2001.
Fung et al, “Mining Very-non parallel corpora: Parallel sentence and lexicon extractioin via bootstrapping and EM”, In EMNLP 2004.
“Fung, P. and Yee, L., “An IR Approach for Translating New Words from Nonparallel, Comparable Texts”, 1998,36th Annual Meeting of the ACL, 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 414-420.”
“Fung, Pascale, “Compiling Bilingual Lexicon Entries From a Non-Parallel English-Chinese Corpus”, 1995, Proc, ofthe Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Boston, MA, pp. 173-183.”
“Gale, W. and Church, K., “A Program for Aligning Sentences in Bilingual Corpora,” 1991, 29th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, pp. 177-183.”
Gale, W. and Church, K., “A Program for Aligning Sentences in Bilingual Corpora,” 1993, Computational Linguisitcs, vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 177-184.
Gaussier et al, “A Geometric View on Bilingual Lexicon Extraction from Comparable Corpora”, In Proceedings of ACL 2004, July.
“Germann et al., “Fast Decoding and Optimal Decoding for Machine Translation”, 2001, Proc. of the 39th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, Toulouse, France, pp. 228-235.”
“Germann, Ulrich: “Building a Statistical Machine Translation System from Scratch: How Much Bang for theBuck Can We Expect?” Proc. of the Data-Driven MT Workshop of ACL-01, Toulouse, France, 2001.”
Gildea, D., “Loosely Tree-based Alignment for Machine Translation,” In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics—vol. 1 (Sapporo, Japan, Jul. 7-12, 2003). Annual Meeting of the ACL Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 80-87. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075107.
“Grefenstette, Gregory, “The World Wide Web as a Resource for Example-Based Machine TranslationTasks”, 1999, Translating and the Computer 21, Proc. of the 21 st International Cant. on Translating and theComputer. London, UK, 12 pp.”
Grossi et al, “Suffix Trees and their applications in string algorithms”, In. Proceedings of the 1st South American Workshop on String Processing, Sep. 1993, pp. 57-76.
Gupta et al., “Kelips: Building an Efficient and Stable P2P DHT thorough Increased Memory and Background Overhead,” 2003 IPTPS, LNCS 2735, pp. 160-169.
Habash, Nizar, “The Use of a Structural N-gram Language Model in Generation-Heavy Hybrid Machine Translation,” University of Maryland, Univ. Institute for Advance Computer Studies, Sep. 8, 2004.
“Hatzivassiloglou, V. et al., “Unification-Based Glossing”,. 1995, Proc. of the International Joint Conference onArtificial Intelligence, pp. 1382-1389.”
Ide, N. and Veronis, J., “Introduction to the Special Issue on Word Sense Disambiguation: The State of the Art”, Mar. 1998, Computational Linguistics, vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 2-40.
Bikel, D., Schwartz, R., and Weischedei, R., “An Algorithm that learns What's in a Name,” Machine Learning 34, 211-231 (1999).
Imamura et al., “Feedback Cleaning of Machine Translation Rules Using Automatic Evaluation,” 2003 Computational Linguistics, pp. 447-454.
Imamura, Kenji, “Hierarchical Phrase Alignment Harmonized with Parsing”, 2001, In Proc. of NLPRS, Tokyo.
“Jelinek, F., “Fast Sequential Decoding Algorithm Using a Stack”, Nov. 1969, IBM J. Res. Develop., vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 675-685.”
“Jones, K. Sparck, “Experiments in Relevance Weighting of Search Terms”, 1979, Information Processing &Management, vol. 15, Pergamon Press Ltd., UK, pp. 133-144.”
“Knight et al., “Integrating Knowledge Bases and Statistics in MT,” 1994, Proc. of the Conference of the Associationfor Machine Translation in the Americas.”
“Knight et al., “Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System”, 1995, Proc. ofthe14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, vol. 2, pp. 1390-1396.”
“Knight, K. and Al-Onaizan, Y., “A Primer on Finite-State Software for Natural Language Processing”, 1999 (available at http://www.isLedullicensed-sw/carmel).”
Knight, K. and Al-Onaizan, Y., “Translation with Finite-State Devices,” Proceedings of the 4th AMTA Conference, 1998.
“Knight, K. and Chander, I., “Automated Postediting of Documents,”1994, Proc. of the 12th Conference on ArtificialIntelligence, pp. 779-784.”
Knight, K. and Graehl, J., “Machine Transliteration”, 1997, Proc. of the ACL-97, Madrid, Spain, pp. 128-135.
“Knight, K. and Hatzivassiloglou, V., “Two-Level, Many-Paths Generation,” D 1995, Proc. of the 33rd AnnualConference of the ACL, pp. 252-260.”
“Knight, K. and Luk, S., “Building a Large-Scale Knowledge Base for Machine Translation,” 1994, Proc. of the 12thConference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 773-778.”
“Knight, K. and Marcu, D., “Statistics-Based Summarization—Step One: Sentence Compression,” 2000, AmericanAssociation for Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 703-710.”
“Knight, K. and Yamada, K., “A Computational Approach to Deciphering Unknown Scripts,” 1999, Proc. of the ACLWorkshop on Unsupervised Learning in Natural Language Processing.”
“Knight, Kevin, “A Statistical MT Tutorial Workbook,” 1999, JHU Summer Workshop (available at http://www.isLedu/natural-language/mUwkbk.rtf).”
Knight, Kevin, “Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Machine Translation,” 1997, AI Magazine 18(4).
“Knight, Kevin, “Connectionist Ideas and Algorithms,” Nov. 1990, Communications of the ACM, vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 59-74.”
“Knight, Kevin, “Decoding Complexity in Word-Replacement Translation Models”, 1999, Computational Linguistics,25(4).”
“Knight, Kevin, “Integrating Knowledge Acquisition and Language Acquisition”, May 1992, Journal of AppliedIntelligence, vol. 1, No. 4.”
“Knight, Kevin, “Learning Word Meanings by Instruction,” 1996, Proc. of the D National Conference on ArtificialIntelligence, vol. 1, pp. 447-454.”
Knight, Kevin, “Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey,” 1989, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 21, No. 1.
Koehn, Philipp, “Noun Phrase Translation,” A PhD Dissertation for the University of Southern California, pp. xiii, 23, 25-57, 72-81, Dec. 2003.
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., “ChunkMT: Statistical Machine Translation with Richer Linguistic Knowledge,” Apr. 2002,Information Sciences Institution.”
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., “Estimating Word Translation Probabilities from Unrelated Monolingual Corpora Usingthe EM Algorithm,” 2000, Proc. of the 17th meeting of the AAAI.”
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., “Knowledge Sources for Word-Level Translation Models,” 2001, Conference on EmpiricalMethods in Natural Language Processing.”
“Kumar, R. and Li, H., “Integer Programming Approach to Printed Circuit Board Assembly Time Optimization,” 1995,IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing, Part B: Advance Packaging, vol. 18,No. 4. pp. 720-727.”
Kupiec, Julian, “An Algorithm for Finding Noun Phrase Correspondecnes in Bilingual Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the ACL, 1993, pp. 17-22.
“Kurohashi, S. and Nagao, M., “Automatic Detection of Discourse Structure by Checking Surface Information inSentences,” 1994, Proc. of COL-LING '94, vol. 2, pp. 1123-1127.”
“Langkilde, I. and Knight, K., “Generation that Exploits Corpus-Based Statistical Knowledge,” 1998, Proc. of theCOLING-ACL, pp. 704-710.”
Shirai, S., “A Hybrid Rule and Example-based Method for Machine Translation,” NTT Communication Science Laboratories, pp. 1-5.
“Sumita et al., “A Discourse Structure Analyzer for Japanese Text, 1992, Proc. of the International Conference onFifth Generation Computer Systems,” vol. 2, pp. 1133-1140.”
Yamamoto et al, “Acquisition of Phrase-level Bilingual Correspondence using Dependency Structure” In Proceedings of COLING-2000, pp. 933-939.
“Bangalore, S. and Rambow, O., “Using TAGs, a Tree Model, and a Language Model for Generation,” May 2000,Workshop TAG+5, Paris.”
Gale, W. and Church, K., “A Program for Aligning Sentences in Bilingual Corpora,” 1993, Computational Linguistics, vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 75-102.
Papineni et al., “Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation”, Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Jul. 2002, pp. 311-318.
Shaalan et al., “Machine Translation of English Noun Phrases into Arabic”, (2004), vol. 17, No. 2, International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 14 pages.
Isahara et al., “Analysis, Generation and Semantic Representation in CONTRAST—A Context-Based Machine Translation System”, 1995, Systems and Computers in Japan, vol. 26, No. 14, pp. 37-53.
Proz.com, Rates for proofreading versus Translating, http://www.proz.com/forum/business—issues/202-rates—for—proofreading—versus—translating.html, Apr. 23, 2009, retrieved Jul. 13, 2012.
Celine, Volume discounts on large translation project, naked translations, http://www.nakedtranslations.com/en/2007/volume-discounts-on-large-translation-projects/, Aug. 1, 2007, retrieved Jul. 16, 2012.
Graehl, J and Knight, K, May 2004, Training Tree Transducers, In NAACL-HLT (2004), pp. 105-112.
Niessen et al, “Statistical machine translation with scarce resources using morphosyntactic information”, Jun. 2004, Computational Linguistics, vol. 30, issue 2, pp. 181-204.
Liu et al., “Context Discovery Using Attenuated Bloom Filters in Ad-Hoc Networks,” Springer, pp. 13-25, 2006.
First Office Action mailed Jun. 7, 2004 in Canadian Patent Application 2408819, filed May 11, 2001.
First Office Action mailed Jun. 14, 2007 in Canadian Patent Application 2475857, filed Mar. 11, 2003.
Office Action mailed Mar. 26, 2012 in German Patent Application 10392450.7, filed Mar. 28, 2003.
First Office Action mailed Nov. 5, 2008 in Canadian Patent Application 2408398, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Second Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2009 in Canadian Patent Application 2408398, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
First Office Action mailed Mar. 1, 2005 in European Patent Application No. 03716920.8, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Second Office Action mailed Nov. 9, 2006 in European Patent Application No. 03716920.8, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Third Office Action mailed Apr. 30, 2008 in European Patent Application No. 03716920.8, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Office Action mailed Oct. 25, 2011 in Japanese Patent Application 2007-536911 filed Oct. 12, 2005.
Office Action mailed Jul. 24, 2012 in Japanese Patent Application 2007-536911 filed Oct. 12, 2005.
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 9, 2013 in Japanese Patent Application 2007-536911 filed Oct. 12, 2005.
Office Action mailed May 13, 2005 in Chinese Patent Application 1812317.1, filed May 11, 2001.
Office Action mailed Apr. 21, 2006 in Chinese Patent Application 1812317.1, filed May 11, 2001.
Office Action mailed Jul. 19, 2006 in Japanese Patent Application 2003-577155, filed Mar. 11, 2003.
Office Action mailed Mar. 1, 2007 in Chinese Patent Application 3805749.2, filed Mar. 11, 2003.
Office Action mailed Feb. 27, 2007 in Japanese Patent Application 2002-590018, filed May 13, 2002.
Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2007 in Chinese Patent Application 3807018.9, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Office Action mailed Dec. 7, 2005 in Indian Patent Application 2283/DELNP/2004, filed Mar. 11, 2003.
Office Action mailed Mar. 31, 2009 in European Patent Application 3714080.3, filed Mar. 11, 2003.
Agichtein et al., “Snowball: Extracting Information from Large Plain-Text Collections,” ACM DL '00, the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, Jun. 2, 2000, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Satake, Masaomi, “Anaphora Resolution for Named Entity Extraction in Japanese Newspaper Articles,” Master's Thesis [online], Feb. 15, 2002, School of Information Science, JAIST, Nomi, Ishikaw, Japan.
Office Action mailed Aug. 29, 2006 in Japanese Patent Application 2003-581064, filed Mar. 27, 2003.
Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2007 in Chinese Patent Application 3807027.8, filed Mar. 28, 2003.
Office Action mailed Jul. 25, 2006 in Japanese Patent Application 2003-581063, filed Mar. 28, 2003.
“Abney, Steven P. , “Parsing by Chunks,” 1991, Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, vol. 44,pp. 257-279.”
Agbago, A., et al., “True-casing for the Portage System,” In Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (Borovets, Bulgaria), Sep. 21-23, 2005, pp. 21-24.
Al-Onaizan et al., “Statistical Machine Translation,” 1999, JHU Summer Tech Workshop, Final Report, pp. 1-42.
“Al-Onaizan et al., “Translating with Scarce Resources,” 2000, 17th National Conference of the American Associationfor Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, pp. 672-678.”
Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight K., “Machine Transliteration of Names in Arabic Text,”Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Languages. Philadelphia, 2002.
“Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight, K., “Named Entity Translation: Extended Abstract”, 2002, Proceedings of HLT-02, SanDiego, CA.”
“Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight, K., “Translating Named Entities Using Monolingual and Bilingual Resources,” 2002, Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 400-408.”
“Alshawi et al., “Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers,” 2000, Computational Linguistics, vol. 26, pp. 45-60.”
Alshawi, Hiyan, “Head Automata for Speech Translation”, Proceedings of the ICSLP 96, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania.
“Arbabi et al., “Algorithms for Arabic name transliteration,” Mar. 1994, IBM Journal of Research and Development,vol. 38, Issue 2, pp. 183-194.”
Arun, A., et al., “Edinburgh System Description for the 2006 TC-STAR Spoken Language Translation Evaluation,” in TC-STAR Workshop on Speech-to-Speech Translation (Barcelona, Spain), Jun. 2006, pp. 37-41.
Ballesteros, L. et al., “Phrasal Translation and Query Expansion Techniques for Cross-Language Information,”SIGIR 97, Philadelphia, PA, © 1997, pp. 84-91.
“Bangalore, S. and Rambow, 0., “Evaluation Metrics for Generation,” 2000, Proc. of the 1st International NaturalLanguage Generation Conf., vol. 14, pp. 1-8.”
“Bangalore, S. and Rambow, 0., “Using TAGs, a Tree Model, and a Language Model for Generation,” May 2000,Workshop TAG+5, Paris.”
“Bangalore, S. and Rambow, O., “Corpus-Based Lexical Choice in Natural Language Generation,” 2000, Proc. ofthe 38th Annual ACL, Hong Kong, pp. 464-471.”
“Bangalore, S. and Rambow, O., “Exploiting a Probabilistic Hierarchical Model for Generation,” 2000, Proc. of 18thconf. on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 42-48.”
Bannard, C. and Callison-Burch, C., “Paraphrasing with Bilingual Parallel Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (Ann Arbor, MI, Jun. 25-30, 2005). Annual Meeting of the ACL Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 597-604. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1219840.
“Barnett et al., “Knowledge and Natural Language Processing,” Aug. 1990, Communications of the ACM, vol. 33,Issue 8, pp. 50-71.”
“Baum, Leonard, “An Inequality and Associated Maximization Technique in Statistical Estimation for ProbabilisticFunctions of Markov Processes”, 1972, Inequalities 3:1-8.”
Berhe, G. et al., “Modeling Service-baed Multimedia Content Adaptation in Pervasive Computing,” CF '04 (Ischia, Italy) Apr. 14-16, 2004, pp. 60-69.
Boitet, C. et al., “Main Research Issues in Building Web Services,” Proc. Of the 6th Symposium on Natural Language Processing, Human and Computer Processing of Language and Speech, © 2005, pp. 1-11.
“Brants, Thorsten, “TnT—A Statistical Part-of-Speech Tagger,” 2000, Proc. of the 6th Applied Natural LanguageProcessing Conference, Seattle.”
Brill, Eric, “Transformation-Based Error-Driven Learning and Natural Language Processing: A Case Study in Part of Speech Tagging”, 1995, Assocation for Computational Linguistics, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1-37.
“Brill, Eric. “Transformation-Based Error-Driven Learning and Natural Language Processing: A Case Study in Partof Speech Tagging”,1995, Computational Linguistics, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 543-565.”
“Brown et al., “A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation,” Jun. 1990, Computational Linguistics, vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 79-85.”
Brown et al., “Word-Sense Disambiguation Using Statistical Methods,” 1991, Proc. of 29th Annual ACL, pp. 264-270.
“Brown et al., “The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation,” 1993, ComputationalLinguistics, vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 263-311.”
“Brown, Ralf, “Automated Dictionary Extraction for “Knowledge-Free” Example-Based Translation,” 1997, Proc. of 7th Int'l Cont. on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in MT, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 111-118.”
“Callan et al., “TREC and TIPSTER Experiments with INQUERY,” 1994, Information Processing and Management,vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 327-343.”
Callison-Burch, C. et al., “Statistical Machine Translation with Word- and Sentence-aligned Parallel Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 21-26, 2004). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 1.
“Carl, Michael. “A Constructivist Approach to Machine Translation,” 1998, New Methods of Language Processingand Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 247-256.”
“Chen, K. and Chen, H., “Machine Translation: An Integrated Approach,” 1995, Proc. of 6th Int'l Cont. on Theoreticaland Methodological Issue in MT, pp. 287-294.”
Cheng, P. et al., “Creating Multilingual Translation Lexicons with Regional Variations Using Web Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 21-26, 2004). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 53.
Cheung et al., “Sentence Alignment in Parallel, Comparable, and Quasi-comparable Corpora”, In Proceedings of LREC, 2004, pp. 30-33.
Chinchor, Nancy, “MUC-7 Named Entity Task Definition,” 1997, Version 3.5.
“Clarkson, P. and Rosenfeld, R., “Statistical Language Modeling Using the CMU-Cambridge Toolkit”, 1997, Proc. ESCA Eurospeech, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 2707-2710.”
Cohen et al., “Spectral Bloom Filters,” SIGMOD 2003, Jun. 9-12, 2003, ACM pp. 241-252.
Cohen, “Hardware-Assisted Algorithm for Full-text Large-dictionary String Matching Using n-gram Hashing,” 1998, Information Processing and Management, vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 443-464.
Cohen, Yossi, “Interpreter for FUF,” (available at ftp:/lftp.cs.bgu.ac.il/ pUb/people/elhadad/fuf-life.lf), 2008.
“Corston-Oliver, Simon, “Beyond String Matching and Cue Phrases: Improving Efficiency and Coverage inDiscourse Analysis”, 1998, The AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarization, pp. 9-15.”
Covington, “An Algorithm to Align Words for Historical Comparison”, Computational Linguistics, 1996, 22(4), pp. 481-496.
“Dagan, I. and Itai, A., “Word Sense Disambiguation Using a Second Language Monolingual Corpus”, 1994, Association forComputational Linguistics, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 563-596.”
“Dempster et al., “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm”, 1977, Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society, vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 1-38.”
“Diab, M. and Finch, S., “A Statistical Word-Level Translation Model for Comparable Corpora,” 2000, In Proc.of theConference on Content Based Multimedia Information Access (RIAO).”
“Diab, Mona, “An Unsupervised Method for Multilingual Word Sense Tagging Using Parallel Corpora: APreliminary Investigation”, 2000, SIGLEX Workshop on Word Senses and Multi-Linguality, pp. 1-9.”
Elhadad et al., “Floating Constraints in Lexical Choice”, 1996, ACL, 23(2): 195-239.
“Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., “An Overview of SURGE: a Reusable Comprehensive Syntactic RealizationComponent,” 1996, Technical Report 96-03, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ben GurionUniversity, Beer Sheva, Israel.”
Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., “Controlling Content Realization with Functional Unification Grammars”, 1992, Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation, Dale et al. (eds)., Springer Verlag, pp. 89-104.
“Elhadad, Michael, “FUF: the Universal Unifier User Manual Version 5.2”, 1993, Department of Computer Science,Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel.”
“Langkilde, I. and Knight, K., “The Practical Value of N-Grams in Generation,” 1998, Proc. of the 9th InternationalNatural Language Generation Workshop, pp. 248-255.”
“Langkilde, Irene, “Forest-Based Statistical Sentence Generation,” 2000, Proc. of the 1st Conference on NorthAmerican chapter of the ACL, Seattle, WA, pp. 170-177.”
“Langkilde-Geary, Irene, “A Foundation for General-Purpose Natural Language Generation: SentenceRealization Using Probabilistic Models of Language,” 2002, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School, Universityof Southern California.”
“Langkilde-Geary, Irene, “An Empirical Verification of Coverage and Correctness for a General-PurposeSentence Generator,” 1998, Proc. 2nd Int'l Natural Language Generation Conference.”
“Lee-Y.S.,“Neural Network Approach to Adaptive Learning: with an Application to Chinese HomophoneDisambiguation,” IEEE pp. 1521-1526”, Jul. 2001.
Lita, L., et al., “tRuEcasing,” Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (In Hinrichs, E. and Roth, D.—editors), pp. 152-159, Jul. 2003.
Llitjos, A. F. et al., “The Translation Correction Tool: English-Spanish User Studies,” Citeseer © 2004, downloaded from: http://gs37.sp.cs.cmu.edu/ari/papers/Irec04/fontll, pp. 1-4.
“Mann, G. and Yarowsky, D., “Multipath Translation Lexicon Induction via Bridge Languages,” 2001, Proc. of the2nd Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 151-158.”
“Manning, C. and Schutze, H., “Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing,” 2000, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA [redacted].”
“Marcu, D. and Wong, W., “A Phrase-Based, Joint Probability Model for Statistical Machine Translation,” 2002, Proc.of ACL-2 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, vol. 10, pp. 133-139.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “Building Up Rhetorical Structure Trees,” 1996, Proc. of the National Conference on ArtificialIntelligence and Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1069-1074.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text,” 1999, Advances in Automatic TextSummarization, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “Instructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts,” 1999, DiscourseAnnotation, pp. 1-49.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “The Rhetorical Parsing of Natural Language Texts,” 1997, Proceedings of ACLIEACL '97, pp. 96-103.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Texts,” 1997, Ph. D.Thesis, Graduate Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.”
“Marcu, Daniel, “Towards a Unified Approach to Memory- and Statistical-Based Machine Translation,” 2001, Proc.of the 39th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 378-385.”
McCallum A. and Li, W., “Early Results for Named Entity Recognition with Conditional Random Fields, Feature Induction and Web-enhanced Lexicons,” In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL, 2003, vol. 4 (Edmonton, Canada), Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, pp. 188-191.
McDevitt, K. et al., “Designing of a Community-based Translation Center,” Technical Report TR-03-30, Computer Science, Virginia Tech, © 2003, pp. 1-8.
“Melamed, I. Dan, “A Word-to-Word Model of Translational Equivalence,” 1997, Proc. of the 35th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, Madrid, Spain, pp. 490-497.”
“Melamed, I. Dan, “Automatic Evaluation and Uniform Filter Cascades for Inducing N-Best Translation Lexicons,”1995, Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Boston, MA, pp. 184-198.”
“Melamed, I. Dan, “Empirical Methods for Exploiting Parallel Texts,” 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA [table ofcontents].”
“Meng et al.. “Generating Phonetic Cognates to Handle Named Entities in English-Chinese Cross-LanguageSpoken Document Retrieval,” 2001, IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding. pp. 311-314.”
Metze, F. et al., “The NESPOLE! Speech-to-Speech Translation System,” Proc. of the HLT 2002, 2nd Int'l Conf. on Human Language Technology (San Francisco, CA), © 2002, pp. 378-383.
“Mikheev et al., “Named Entity Recognition without Gazeteers,” 1999, Proc. of European Chapter of the ACL, Bergen,Norway, pp. 1-8.”
“Miike et al., “A full-text retrieval system with a dynamic abstract generation function,” 1994, Proceedings of SI-GIR'94, pp. 152-161.”
“Mohri, M. and Riley, M., “An Efficient Algorithm for the N-Best-Strings Problem,” 2002, Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. onSpoken Language Processing (ICSLP'02), Denver, CO, pp. 1313-1316.”
Mohri, Mehryar, “Regular Approximation of Context Free Grammars Through Transformation”, 2000, pp. 251-261, “Robustness in Language and Speech Technology”, Chapter 9, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
“Monasson et al., “Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’,” Jul. 1999, NatureMagazine, vol. 400, pp. 133-137.”
“Mooney, Raymond, “Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Biasin Machine Learning,” 1996, Proc. of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 82-91.”
Nagao, K. et al., “Semantic Annotation and Transcoding: Making Web Content More Accessible,” IEEE Multimedia, vol. 8, Issue 2 Apr.-Jun. 2001, pp. 69-81.
“Nederhof, M. and Satta, G., “IDL-Expressions: A Formalism for Representing and Parsing Finite Languages inNatural Language Processing,” 2004, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 21, pp. 281-287.”
“Niessen,S. and Ney, H, “Toward hierarchical models for statistical machine translation of inflected languages,” 2001,Data-Driven Machine Translation Workshop, Toulouse, France, pp. 47-54.”
Norvig, Peter, “Techniques for Automatic Memoization with Applications to Context-Free Parsing”, Compuational Linguistics,1991, pp. 91-98, vol. 17, No. 1.
“Och et al., “Improved Alignment Models for Statistical Machine Translation,” 1999, Proc. of the Joint Conf. ofEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora, pp. 20-28.”
Och et al. “A Smorgasbord of Features for Statistical Machine Translation.” HLTNAACL Conference. Mar. 2004, 8 pages.
Och, F., “Minimum Error Rate Training in Statistical Machine Translation,” In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics—vol. 1 (Sapporo, Japan, Jul. 7-12, 2003). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 160-167. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075096.
“Och, F. and Ney, H, “Improved Statistical Alignment Models,” 2000, 38th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Hong Kong, pp. 440-447.”
Och, F. and Ney, H., “Discriminative Training and Maximum Entropy Models for Statistical Machine Translation,” 2002, Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 295-302.
Och, F. and Ney, H., “A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models,” Computational Linguistics, 2003, 29:1, 19-51.
“Papineni et al., “Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation,” 2001, IBM Research Report, RC22176(WQ102-022).”
Perugini, Saviero et al., “Enhancing Usability in CITIDEL: Multimodal, Multilingual and Interactive Visualization Interfaces,” JCDL '04, Tucson, AZ, Jun. 7-11, 2004, pp. 315-324.
“Pla et al., “Tagging and Chunking with Bigrams,” 2000, Proc. of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 614-620.”
Qun, Liu, “A Chinese-English Machine Translation System Based on Micro-Engine Architecture,” An Int'l. Conference on Translation and Information Technology, Hong Kong, Dec. 2000, pp. 1-10.
Rapp, Reinhard, Automatic Identification of Word Translations from Unrelated English and German Corpora, 1999, 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 519-526.
“Rapp, Reinhard, “Identifying Word Translations in Non-Parallel Texts,” 1995, 33rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 320-322.”
Rayner et al.,“Hybrid Language Processing in the Spoken Language Translator,” IEEE, pp. 107-110, Apr. 1997.
“Resnik, P. and Smith, A., “The Web as a Parallel Corpus,” Sep. 2003, Computational Linguistics, Speciallssue on Web as Corpus, vol. 29, Issue 3, pp. 349-380.”
“Resnik, P. and Yarowsky, D. “A Perspective on Word Sense Disambiguation Methods and Their Evaluation,” 1997, Proceedings of SIGLEX '97, Washington, D.C., pp. 79-86.”
“Resnik, Philip, “Mining the Web for Bilingual Text,” 1999, 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, College Park, MD, pp. 527-534.”
Rich, E. and Knight, K., “Artificial Intelligence, Second Edition,” 1991, McGraw-Hili Book Company [redacted].
“Richard et al., “Visiting the Traveling Salesman Problem with Petri nets and application in the glass industry,” Feb. 1996, IEEE Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, pp. 238-242.”
“Robin, Jacques, “Revision-Based Generation of Natural Language Summaries Providing Historical Background: Corpus-Based Analysis, Design Implementation and Evaluation,” 1994, Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, New York.”
Rogati et al., “Resource Selection for Domain-Specific Cross-Lingual IR,” ACM 2004, pp. 154-161.
Zhang, R. et al., “The NiCT-ATR Statistical Machine Translation System for the IWSLT 2006 Evaluation,” submitted to IWSLT, 2006.
“Russell, S. and Norvig, P., “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,” 1995, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey [redacted—table of contents].”
“Sang, E. and Buchholz, S., “Introduction to the CoNLL-2000 Shared Task: Chunking,” 20002, Proc. ofCoNLL-2000 and LLL-2000, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 127-132.”
Schmid, H., and Schulte im Walde, S., “Robust German Noun Chunking With a Probabilistic Context-Free Grammar,” 2000, Proc. of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 726-732.
“Schutze, Hinrich, “Automatic Word Sense Discrimination,” 1998, Computational Linguistics, Special Issue on WordSense Disambiguation, vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 97-123.”
“Selman et al., “A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems,” 1992, Proc. of the 10th National Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA, pp. 440-446.”
Kumar, S. and Byrne, W., “Minimum Bayes-Risk Decoding for Statistical Machine Translation.” HLTNAACL Conference. Mar. 2004, 8 pages.
“Shapiro, Stuart (ed.), “Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edition”, vol. D 2,1992, John Wiley & Sons Inc;“Unification” article, K. Knight, pp. 1630-1637.”
Shirai, S., “A Hybrid Rule and Example-based Method for Machine Translation,” NTT Communication Science Laboratories, pp. 1-5, 1997.
“Sobashima et al., “A Bidirectional Transfer-Driven Machine Translation System for Spoken Dialogues,” 1994, Proc.of 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 64-68.”
“Soricut et al., “Using a large monolingual corpus to improve translation accuracy,” 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2499, Proc. of the 5th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in theAmericas on Machine Translation: From Research to Real Users, pp. 155-164.”
“Stalls, B. and Knight, K., “Translating Names and Technical Terms in Arabic Text,” 1998, Proc. of the COLING/ACL Workkshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Language.”
“Sumita et al., “A Discourse Structure Analyzer for Japanese Text,” 1992, Proc. of the International Conference onFifth Generation Computer Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1133-1140.”
“Sun et al., “Chinese Named Entity Identification Using Class-based Language Model,” 2002, Proc. of 19thInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan, vol. 1, pp. 1-7.”
Tanaka, K. and Iwasaki, H. “Extraction of Lexical Translations from Non-Aligned Corpora,” Proceedings of COLING 1996.
Taskar, B., et al., “A Discriminative Matching Approach to Word Alignment,” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Vancouver, BC, Canada, Oct. 6-8, 2005). Human Language Technology Conference. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ.
“Taylor et al., “The Penn Treebank: An Overview,” in A. Abeill (ed.), D Treebanks: Building and Using ParsedCorpora, 2003, pp. 5-22.”
“Tiedemann, Jorg, “Automatic Construction of Weighted String Similarity Measures,” 1999, In Proceedings ofthe Joint SIGDAT Conference on Emperical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora.”
“Tillman, C. and Xia, F., “A Phrase-Based Unigram Model for Statistical Machine Translation,” 2003, Proc. of theNorth American Chapter of the ACL on Human Language Technology, vol. 2, pp. 106-108.”
“Tillmann et al., “A DP based Search Using Monotone Alignments in Statistical Translation,” 1997, Proc. of theAnnual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 366-372.”
Tomas, J., “Binary Feature Classification for Word Disambiguation in Statistical Machine Translation,” Proceedings of the 2nd Int'l. Workshop on Pattern Recognition, 2002, pp. 1-12.
Uchimoto, K. et al., “Word Translation by Combining Example-based Methods and Machine Learning Models,” Natural LanguageProcessing (Shizen Gengo Shori), vol. 10, No. 3, Apr. 2003, pp. 87-114.
Uchimoto, K. et al., “Word Translation by Combining Example-based Methods and Machine Learning Models,” Natural LanguageProcessing (Shizen Gengo Shori), vol. 10, No. 3, Apr. 2003, pp. 87-114. (English Translation).
“Ueffing et al., “Generation of Word Graphs in Statistical Machine Translation,” 2002, Proc. of Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 156-163.”
Varga et al, “Parallel corpora for medium density languages”, In Proceedings of RANLP 2005, pp. 590-596.
“Veale, T. and Way, A., “Gaijin: A Bootstrapping, Template-Driven Approach to Example-Based MT,” 1997, Proc. ofNew Methods in Natural Language Processing (NEMPLP97), Sofia, Bulgaria.”
Vogel et al., “The CMU Statistical Machine Translation System,” 2003, Machine Translation Summit IX, New Orleans, LA.
“Vogel et al., “The Statistical Translation Module in the Verbmobil System,” 2000, Workshop on Multi-Lingual SpeechCommunication, pp. 69-74.”
“Vogel, S. and Ney, H., “Construction of a Hierarchical Translation Memory,” 2000, Proc. of Cooling 2000, Saarbrucken, Germany, pp. 1131-1135.”
“Wang, Y. and Waibel, A., “Decoding Algorithm in Statistical Machine Translation,” 1996, Proc. of the 35th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 366-372.”
“Wang, Ye-Yi, “Grammar Inference and Statistical Machine Translation,” 1998, Ph.D Thesis, Carnegie MellonUniversity, Pittsburgh, PA.”
“Watanabe et al., “Statistical Machine Translation Based on Hierarchical Phrase Alignment,” 2002, 9th InternationalConference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machin Translation (TMI-2002), Keihanna, Japan, pp. 188-198.”
“Witbrock, M. and Mittal, V., “Ultra-Summarization: A Statistical Approach to Generating Highly Condensed Non-Extractive Summaries,” 1999, Proc. of SIGIR '99, 22nd International Conference on Research and Development inlnformation Retrieval, Berkeley, CA, pp. 315-316.”
“Wu, Dekai, “A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Statistical Machine Translation,” 1996, Proc. of 34th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, pp. 152-158.”
“Wu, Dekai, “Stochastic Inversion Transduction Grammars and Bilingual Parsing of Parallel Corpora,” 1997, Computational Linguistics, vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 377-403.”
“Yamada, K. and Knight, K. “A Syntax-based Statistical Translation Model,” D 2001, Proc. of the 39th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 523-530.”
“Yamada, K. and Knight, K., “A Decoder for Syntax-based Statistical MT,” 2001, Proceedings of the 40th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 303-310.”
Yamada K., “A Syntax-Based Statistical Translation Model,” 2002 PhD Dissertation, pp. 1-141.
“Yamamoto et al., “A Comparative Study on Translation Units for Bilingual Lexicon Extraction,” 2001, JapanAcademic Association for Copyright Clearance, Tokyo, Japan.”
Yamamoto et al, “Acquisition of Phrase-level Bilingual Correspondence using Dependency Structure” In Proceedings of COLING-2000, pp. 933-939, 2000.
“Yarowsky, David, “Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling Supervised Methods,” 1995, 33rd AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 189-196.”
Zhang et al., “Distributed Language Modeling for N-best List Re-ranking,” In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Sydney, Australia, Jul. 22-23, 2006). ACL Workshops. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 216-223.
“Patent Cooperation Treaty International Preliminary Report on Patentability and the Written Opinion, Internationalapplication No. PCT/US2008/004296, Oct. 6, 2009, 5 pgs.”
Document, Wikipedia.com, web.archive.org (Feb. 24, 2004) <http://web.archive.org/web/20040222202831 /http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiiDocument>, Feb, 24, 2004.
Identifying, Dictionary.com, wayback.archive.org (Feb. 28, 2007) <http://wayback.archive.org/web/200501 01 OOOOOO*/http:////dictionary.reference.com//browse//identifying>, Feb. 28, 2005 <http://web.archive.org/web/20070228150533/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identifying>.
Koehn, P., et al, “Statistical Phrase-Based Translation,” Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003 Main Papers , pp. 48-54 Edmonton, May-Jun. 2003.
Abney, S.P., “Stochastic Attribute Value Grammars”, Association for Computional Linguistics, 1997, pp. 597-618.
Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 10, 2013 in Japanese Patent Application 2007-536911, filed Oct. 12, 2005.
Makoushina, J. “Translation Quality Assurance Tools: Current State and Future Approaches.” Translating and the Computer, 29, 1-39, retrieved at <<http://www.palex.ru/fc/98/Translation%20Quality%Assurance%20Tools.pdf>>, Nov. 2007.
Specia et al. “Improving the Confidence of Machine Translation Quality Estimates,” MT Summit XII, Ottawa, Canada, 2009, 8 pages.
Fox, H., “Phrasal Cohesion and Statistical Machine Translation” Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Philadelphia, Jul. 2002, pp. 304-311. Association for Computational Linguistics. <URL: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W02/W02-1039.pdf>.
Tillman, C., et al, “Word Reordering and a Dynamic Programming Beam Search Algorithm for Statistical Machine Translation” <URL: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J03/J03-1005.pdf>, 2003.
Wang, W., et al. “Capitalizing Machine Translation” in HLT-NAACL '06 Proceedings Jun. 2006. <http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/mt/hlt-naacl-06-wang.pdf>.
Langlais, P. et al., “TransType: a Computer-Aided Translation Typing System” EmbedMT '00 ANLP-NAACL 2000 Workshop: Embedded Machine Translation Systems, 2000, pp. 46-51. <http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W00/W00-0507.pdf>.
Huang et al. Automatic Extraction of Named Entity Translingual Equivalence Based on Multi-Feature Cost Minimization. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Multilingual and Mixed-Language Name Entry Recognition.