The present technology relates generally to machine translation methodologies and systems, and more specifically, but not by way of limitation, to personalized machine translation via online adaptation, where translator feedback regarding machine translations may be intelligently evaluated and incorporated back into the translation methodology utilized by a machine translation system to improve and/or personalize the translations produced by the machine translation system.
The quality of translations produced by machine translation systems often depends upon the quality of the translation methodologies utilized by the machine translation systems. Commonly utilized translation methodologies may comprise language models, translation memories, parallel corpora, translation dictionaries, phrase tables, and so forth. Additionally, translations produced by machine translation systems may be improved by adding new information to the translation methodologies utilized by the machine translation systems. The present technology contemplates utilizing translator feedback regarding machine translations to improve and/or personalize the translations produced by these machine translation systems.
According to some embodiments, the present technology may be directed to methods for managing a personalized machine translation system. These methods may comprise: (a) receiving translator feedback regarding machine translations generated by a machine translation system for a translator, the machine translation system using a translation methodology; (b) determining translator feedback that improves translations generated by the machine translation system; and (c) incorporating the determined translator feedback into the translation methodology of the machine translation system to personalize the translation methodology.
According to other embodiments, the present technology may be directed to personalized machine translation systems. These systems may comprise: (a) a feedback processor that receives translator feedback regarding machine translations generated by a machine translation system for a translator, the machine translation system using a translation methodology; (b) a feedback classifier that determines translator feedback that improves translations generated by the machine translation system; and (c) a dictionary pusher that incorporates the translator feedback into the translation methodology of the machine translation system to personalize the translation methodology.
According to additional embodiments, the present technology may be directed to methods for managing a personalized machine translation system. These methods may comprise: (a) receiving translator feedback regarding machine translations generated by a machine translation system for a translator, the machine translation system using a translation methodology; (b) determining translator feedback that improves translations generated by the machine translation system; (c) determining one or more translation preferences for the translator; and (d) incorporating the determined translator feedback and the translation preferences into the translation methodology of the machine translation system to personalize the translation methodology.
According to some embodiments, a method may comprise: (a) generating a personalized translation of a target sentence using a language model, the language model used to determine a likelihood that a target sentence is grammatically well-formed, independent of translation quality; (b) receiving a feedback-adjusted translation for the language model translation; and (c) incorporating the feedback-adjusted translation into a training corpus.
Certain embodiments of the present technology are illustrated by the accompanying figures. It will be understood that the figures are not necessarily to scale and that details not necessary for an understanding of the technology or that render other details difficult to perceive may be omitted. It will be understood that the technology is not necessarily limited to the particular embodiments illustrated herein.
While this technology is susceptible of embodiment in many different forms, there is shown in the drawings and will herein be described in detail several specific embodiments with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an exemplification of the principles of the technology and is not intended to limit the technology to the embodiments illustrated.
It will be understood that like or analogous elements and/or components, referred to herein, may be identified throughout the drawings with like reference characters. It will be further understood that several of the figures are merely schematic representations of the present technology. As such, some of the components may have been distorted from their actual scale for pictorial clarity.
Generally speaking, the present technology may be directed, in some embodiments, to personalized machine translation via online adaptation. More specifically, but not by way of limitation, the present technology may comprise machine translation systems that receive and process translator feedback regarding machine translations. It will be understood that the machine translation system may utilize one or more types of translation methodologies to translate a source text in a source language into one or more target languages.
These and other advantages of the present technology will be described in greater detail below with reference to the collective drawings (e.g.,
The client device 110 and the system 105 may be communicatively coupled via a network 115. It is noteworthy to mention that the network 115 may include any one (or combination) of private or public communications networks such as the Internet. Additionally, various components of the system 105 may be communicatively coupled together via the network 115, where network connections of system 105 are shown in
According to some embodiments, individual components of the system 105 such as feedback classifier 145, dictionary extractor 155, and dictionary pusher 170 (or the entire system 105) may be implemented within a cloud-based computing environment. In general, a cloud-based computing environment is a resource that typically combines the computational power of a large grouping of processors and/or that combines the storage capacity of a large grouping of computer memories or storage devices. For example, systems that provide a cloud resource may be utilized exclusively by their owners, such as Google™ or Yahoo!™; or such systems may be accessible to outside users who deploy applications within the computing infrastructure to obtain the benefit of large computational or storage resources.
The cloud may be formed, for example, by a network of web servers, with each web server (or at least a plurality thereof) providing processor and/or storage resources. These servers may manage workloads provided by multiple users (e.g., cloud resource consumers or other users). Typically, each user places workload demands upon the cloud that vary in real-time, sometimes dramatically. The nature and extent of these variations typically depend on the type of business associated with the user.
Generally speaking, a source text 120 in a source language may be received from a translator using the client device 110. In some instances, the client device 110 may utilize a translation API for providing source texts to the system 105 and receiving machine translations therefrom. Translations of the source text 120 may be generated by a machine translation system, also referred to as a translation server farm 120A.
As would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the translation server farm 120A may comprise any, or a number of, machine translation systems that employ any number of translation methodologies. Broadly speaking, a translation methodology may be described as any method, process, algorithm, or combination that allows the translation server farm 120A to translate a source text in a source language to a target text in one or more target languages. Exemplary translation methodologies may comprise corpus-based machine translation, rule-based machine translation, transfer-based machine translation, hybrid-based machine translation, statistic-based machine translation, a translation memory, a language model, a translation dictionary, a phrase table, or any combinations or permutations thereof.
According to some embodiments, the translation server farm 120A may utilize a baseline translation methodology that comprises a translation model that utilizes source phrases to generate target translations that are contextually and syntactically relevant. Additionally, the translation methodology may comprise a language model that predicts how likely a particular target translation is to be correct. The translation methodology may utilize translation dictionaries (e.g., phrase tables) and weight vectors that weight each of the translation information generated by the language and translation models, as well as the translation dictionaries. Translator feedback may be utilized to improve the language model, translation model, and/or the translation dictionaries of the translation methodology. The personalization and/or updating of translation dictionaries will be discussed in greater detail below.
Once the translation for the source text 120 has been generated, a source and translation text pair 125 may be provided back to the client device 110 via the translation API. In other instances, the source and translation text pair 125 may be provided to a review environment 130. The review environment 130 may comprise a web-based feedback input system that receives translator feedback 135 from the client device 110. According to some embodiments, translation preferences may also be received using the review environment 130. In some instances, translators may input various translation preferences, such as translator domain. A translator domain may include a reference that may be utilized to guide or affect translations. For example, if the translator works in the financial services industry, the domain for the translator may be “financial services.” Thus, when the machine translation system encounters the word “bank” in a source text, the machine translation system may default to translating “bank” into a corresponding term in the target language, rather than the “bank” of a river, for example. The domain for the translator may be specified by the translator or may be inferred from an analysis of the subject matter or topics included in the source texts provided by the translator.
The translator feedback 135 may comprise any number of different types of information that reflect the translator's response to a translation generated by the translation server farm 120A. The translator's response may comprise, for example, an accuracy rating, corrections for the translation, and/or open-ended commentary, as well as other translation related feedback that would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art with the present disclosure before them. In some instances, the translator feedback 135 may comprise linguistic and qualitative annotations that support translation modeling and feedback research.
According to some embodiments, translator feedback 135 may comprise a triple that comprises a source unit, a translation unit, and a feedback unit. These various units may, in turn, be comprised of segments such as words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and so forth. In practice, the source unit may comprise a source word, the target translation unit may comprise a target translation word, and the feedback unit may comprise an accuracy rating for the translated word.
In other instances, the source unit may comprise multiple words or a phrase. The translation unit may comprise a translation of these words or phrases into a target language. Correspondingly, the feedback unit may comprise corrections for the target unit. For example, corrections may include the number of transformations, changes, edits, or other modifications that had to be performed on the translation unit to make it acceptable to the translator.
Exemplary translator feedback is shown in
The review environment 130 may then provide translator feedback 135 to a feedback data store 140. At this stage, the translator feedback 135 may comprise raw or noisy translation feedback, meaning that the translation feedback has not been processed to determine if the translation feedback is understandable, useable, actionable, or otherwise available for processing and/or incorporation by the system 105.
Using a process feedback API, the feedback classifier 145 may receive the translator feedback 135 from the feedback data store 140. Generally speaking, the feedback classifier 145 may be utilized to separate useful feedback from useless feedback. Again, a “useful” feedback entry is defined as one where the correction may be utilized to produce a better translation of the source text than translation generated by the machine translation system. Any other feedback content, such as a correction that makes the translation worse, commentary, junk, or badly formed data, may be classified by the feedback classifier as “not useful” and may be discarded or ignored by the feedback classifier 145.
Rather than using linguistic experts, the feedback classifier 145 may analyze the translator feedback using one or more surface classes of information to determine the “usefulness” of the translator feedback 135. Exemplary surface classes may comprise evaluations of: (1) a (word|character) Levenshtein distance between correction and translation, divided by translation length; (2) the correction/translation word overlap, divided by translation length; (3) translation words not included in a correction, divided by translation length; (4) correction words not included in the translation, divided by correction length; (5) (translation|correction)/source word overlap, divided by source length; (6) the length of (source|translation|correction); (7) the length of (translation|correction) divided by length of source; (8) (average|maximum) length of (source|translation|correction) word; (9) (average|maximum) length of (translation|correction) word, divided by (average|maximum) source word length; (10) (average|maximum) length of translation unit, divided by (average|maximum) correction word length; (11) determining if (correction|source) are included in the same string.
According to additional embodiments, the feedback classifier 145 may utilize back-translation (BT) features to determine the “usefulness” of the translator feedback 135. Generally speaking, the back-translation of translator feedback may be calculated by first generating translation-bt and correction-bt, the result of translating the translation or, respectively, the correction, back into the source language. It will be understood that extraction of BT features by the feedback classifier 145 may rely on the creation of back-translations of translated and corrected sentences.
Exemplary BT features may comprise: (1) (word|character) Levenshtein distance between (translation-bt|correction-bt) and the source segment; (2) (word|character) Levenshtein distance between translation-bt and correction-bt; (3) (translation-bt|correction-bt)/source word overlap, divided by source segment length; and (4) (translation-bt|correction-bt) words not in source, divided by translation-bt length.
In some instances, useful feedback may be stored in a second feedback data store 150 that is communicatively coupled with the feedback classifier and a dictionary extractor 155.
After translator feedback has been determined to be useful by the feedback classifier 145, the dictionary extractor 155 may be utilized to determine dictionary entries from the feedback. In some embodiments, the dictionary entries may include sub-sentential segments. The dictionary extractor 155 may locate phrase pairs that are implied by the feedback entries to be missing from or insufficiently weighted in a phrase table utilized by the machine translation system, such as the translation server farm 120A.
The dictionary extractor 155 may extract dictionary entries from a corpus of translator feedback triples (e.g., source unit, translation unit, correction unit). According to some embodiments, the dictionary extractor 155 may construct a first translation table and a second translation table. Generally speaking, the first translation table may comprise bitext pairs of source units and correction units. The dictionary extractor 155 may extract dictionary entries from the translator feedback by preparing the bitext pairs for alignment, aligning the words included in the bitext pairs, and extracting first phrase pairs based upon word alignment.
Next, the dictionary extractor 155 may construct a second translation table that comprises first pairs of source units and translation units. The dictionary extractor 155 may extract dictionary entries from the translator feedback by again preparing the bitext pairs for alignment, aligning the words included in the bitext pairs, and extracting second phrase pairs based upon word alignment.
According to some embodiments, the dictionary extractor 155 may prepare bitext pairs for alignment by segmenting words, tokenizing the segments, decapitalizing both sides of the bitext pairs, or any combinations thereof. Next, the dictionary extractor 155 may align the words in the bitext pairs using, for example, GIZA++ commercially available from International Business Machines, Inc.
In some embodiments, the dictionary extractor 155 may extract phrase pairs from the bitext pairs that are consistent with the alignments and subject to typical restrictions such as phrase length, unaligned word restrictions, and so forth, which will be described in greater detail below.
The dictionary extractor 155 may identify phrase pairs from the first and second translation tables that are likely good dictionary corrections, subject to the following exemplary restrictions. One exemplary restriction specifies that only phrase pairs with three or more words in either phrase will be considered by the dictionary extractor 155. Another exemplary restriction specifies that only phrase pairs with terminal words aligned will be considered by the dictionary extractor 155. Exemplary restrictions specify that for considered phrase pairs, for a given source side, if the (source, translation) and (source, correction) phrase tables do not share a target side, and the (source, correction) table has exactly one target side for that source, the phrase from the (source, correction) table is taken as an entry.
In an exemplary use case, the aforementioned methods were utilized by the dictionary extractor 155 to extract dictionary entries from the filtered noisy translator feedback acquired by the feedback classifier 145. Following the methodology described above, the feedback classifier 145 was trained on 814 English->Spanish and English->French annotated feedback entries, using baseline and back-translation features. The feedback classifier 145 was utilized to process 2,382 English->Spanish entries containing correction feedback, which captured by the feedback API and/or the review environment 130.
The feedback classifier 145 filtered 1,749 of the entries as “Useful.” From those entries a dictionary was constructed by the dictionary extractor 155, as described above. The dictionary contained approximately 10,286 entries. By way of contrast a dictionary having 10,677 entries was also constructed from the entire unfiltered 2,382-entry set, to determine the effects of filtering on dictionary quality.
According to some embodiments, the dictionary extractor 155 may be configured to store selected first and second phrase pairs in a translation phrase table that resides on a data repository, such as the dictionary data store 165.
Once the dictionary entries have been extracted from the translator feedback 135, the system 105 may optionally provide the dictionary entries to human linguistic experts 160 for validation. Validated dictionary entries may be stored in a dictionary data store 165. In other embodiments, dictionary entries may be stored in the dictionary data store 165 without validation.
Next, a dictionary pusher 170 may provide the validated and/or non-validated dictionary entries to the translation server farm 120A. In some instances, the dictionary pusher may incorporate, integrate or otherwise combine the dictionary entries into the translation methodology utilized by the translation server farm 120A.
In addition to updating the translation methodology with the information extracted by the dictionary extractor 155, the dictionary pusher 170 may also provide the translation server farm 120A with translator preferences that may be utilized to further personalize the machine translations generated by the translation server farm 120A.
While the process illustrated in
The machine translation systems of the system 105 may process translator feedback regarding these machine translations and filter the translator feedback for usefulness. In accordance with the present disclosure, the “usefulness” of translator feedback may be determined by the system 105 evaluating whether the feedback, when incorporated into the translation methodology utilized by the machine translation system, produces superior machine translations as compared to machine translations systems that do not incorporate such feedback. The system 105 may produce a translation that is more accurate (e.g., a translation that required fewer manipulations or corrections). Additionally, the system 105 may personalize machine translations by gathering knowledge about the translation preferences of translators, such as common corrections, translator domains, and so forth and applying the translation preferences to machine translations generated for a particular translator.
According to some embodiments, the system 105 may utilize translation model (TM)-based personalization. The goal of TM-based personalization is similar to that of dictionary-based personalization (e.g., using a parallel corpus), to increase coverage of the translation model in response to correction feedback. While a dictionary-based approach may be executed efficiently, these approaches may not take into account a context of the translations it handles. That is, dictionary-based personalization may find source phrases that it has entries for and replace them with memorized target phrases.
Statistical MT in general may be seen as a context-aware methodology that combines learned phrase pairs together to form a translation. TM-based personalization uses feedback to learn new phrase pairs and then includes them with previously learned phrase pairs in an extant statistical MT system.
Similarly to dictionary-based personalization, a TM-based personalization method used by the system 105 may extract phrases from source and correction sentence pairs by inducing a word alignment between the elements of the pairs, for example, by using an unsupervised technique, such as GIZA++, and a sufficiently large corpus of pairs.
A standard phrase pair extraction methodology may be utilized to obtain sub-sentential phrase pairs that are consistent with the alignment and various externally imposed restrictions such as phrase length and treatment of unaligned words. Since the purpose of TM-based personalization is to expand coverage, TM-based personalization may be concerned with those phrase pairs that are not already in the phrase table.
TM-based personalization methods described above are similar to those used for dictionary-based personalization. Additionally, feedback-based phrase pairs may be incorporated into an extant phrase pair database by establishing features for the phrase pairs. A feature is a property of a phrase pair that provides some indication of the pair's utility. Some examples of features are “observed likelihood of target words given source” and “length of target phrase”. Each phrase pair has numeric values for each feature. The feature values for a phrase pair are combined together to give a total score for the phrase pair, which indicates how “good” the pair according to the current translation model.
Features whose values can be determined from the phrase pair text itself (e.g., “length of target phrase”) are easy to calculate for these new phrase pairs, but features based on statistics databases (e.g., “observed likelihood of target words given source”) may be more difficult to calculate due to the lack of appropriate statistics (e.g., the source and target words may not have been observed together sufficiently frequently to obtain an accurate likelihood). For such features the system 105 may simulate appropriate statistics by using either accumulated statistics for low-frequency words or established default values.
Having determined the new phrase pairs, the new phrase pairs may be incorporated into the extant phrase table and a statistical MT may be performed by the system 105 as described above.
In some instances, the system 105 may utilize tuning-based personalization. As mentioned above the score of a phrase pair may be determined by combining its feature values together. According to some embodiments, the “combining” may be performed as follows: For each feature, a numeric weight (which may be positive, negative, or zero) may be determined that indicates the usefulness of the feature relative to determining a phrase pair's overall quality. A positive weight indicates a high feature value (feature values are always zero or positive), which corresponds to high quality. A negative weight means a high feature value, which corresponds to low quality. A zero weight means a feature has no effect on quality. The score of a phrase pair is determined by summing the product of each feature value with its corresponding weight. As an example, let there be three features: A, B, and C. Let the weights for each feature be, respectively, WA=2, WB=1, and WC=−3. For a given phrase pair x, let the feature values be, respectively, FxA=5, FxB=3, and FxC=2. Then the score of x, sX, is WAFXA+WBFXB+WCFXC=10+3+(−6)=7.
According to some embodiments, weights within an exemplary MT system may be determined by iteratively generating a large number of possible translations of a corpus of sentences (called the tuning corpus), determining the weights that enable the highest scoring translations to correspond to the highest possible extrinsic evaluations of those translations (e.g., via the BLEU metric). Additionally, the system 105 may use the calculated weights to generate more translations, until no further gains can be made. This iterative procedure is called tuning. Another commonly used approach to tuning, which differs only in the optimization algorithm used, is the Minimum Error Rate Training (“MERT”) approach.
In some embodiments, the system 105 may utilize feedback as a tuning corpus. Careful selection of a tuning corpus may be utilized to obtain good MT performance. Any tuning corpus should have broad coverage of words and grammar and thus come from a “general” domain. However, if it is known that translation may be skewed toward a particular other domain, performance can be improved by including in-domain sentences in the tuning corpus, in addition to the established general domain set. Since personalization may be viewed as a domain adaptation problem, the present technology may consider the (source, correction) pairs as a domain-specific set and append them to our tuning corpus. The system 105 may then use an established tuning methodology, such as those described above. These methods may be performed iteratively, by incorporating feedback pairs into the tuning set, choosing new weights, using those new weights to generate responses to more translation requests, and then collecting yet more feedback pairs, until it is judged that no additional benefit is gained.
The system 105 may also utilize feedback as tunable feature. In some instances, statistics may be collected based on feedback. Tuning features may be derived from those statistics. For example, the system 105 may be used to calculate a statistic that represents the likelihood that a phrase pair is “licensed” by the feedback. A phrase pair may be “licensed” if it is used both in the original machine translation of a sentence and in the correction of that sentence. This statistic is calculated from a (source, translation, correction) corpus and the new feature may then be used when tuning in order to determine a weight for it. Intuitively, licensed phrase pairs may be favored over unlicensed phrase pairs.
In some instances, the system 105 may employ language model (LM)-based personalization. It is noteworthy that an information source usable in MT is a language model (LM) of the target language. An LM provides a likelihood that a target sentence is well-formed, independent of its translation quality. Some MT systems use very large language models, constructed from general-domain language. These MT systems produce good quality translation results. However, a system that incorporates domain specific language models can improve performance if it is known that translation will be in a specific domain. Thus, the system 105 may consider personalization as a form of domain adaptation, and use given corrections as sentences in a target domain. From these sentences a small, domain-specific LM may be generated and used as an additional information source in translation.
Additionally, the system 105 may modify individual probabilities in the existing LM to correspond to differences between the automatically translated and feedback-adjusted corpora. Probabilities in a LM are generally expressed as the conditional likelihood of a word given a fixed number of words observed before it. If, for example, the phrase “fired the big guns” is observed to be frequently corrected to “fired the big cannons” then we adjust the likelihood of “guns” given “fired the big” lower and that of “cannons” given “fired the big” higher.
The components shown in
Mass storage device 630, which may be implemented with a magnetic disk drive or an optical disk drive, is a non-volatile storage device for storing data and instructions for use by processor unit 610. Mass storage device 630 may store the system software for implementing embodiments of the present technology for purposes of loading that software into main memory 620.
Portable storage device 640 operates in conjunction with a portable non-volatile storage medium, such as a floppy disk, compact disk, digital video disc, or USB storage device, to input and output data and code to and from the computer system 600 of
Input devices 660 provide a portion of a user interface. Input devices 660 may include an alphanumeric keypad, such as a keyboard, for inputting alpha-numeric and other information, or a pointing device, such as a mouse, a trackball, stylus, or cursor direction keys. Additionally, the computer system 600 as shown in
Graphics display 670 may include a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other suitable display device. Graphics display 670 receives textual and graphical information, and processes the information for output to the display device.
Peripherals devices 680 may include any type of computer support device to add additional functionality to the computer system. Peripheral device(s) 680 may include a modem or a router.
The components provided in the computer system 600 of
It is noteworthy that any hardware platform suitable for performing the processing described herein is suitable for use with the technology. Computer-readable storage media refer to any medium or media that participate in providing instructions to a central processing unit (CPU), a processor, a microcontroller, or the like. Such media may take forms including, but not limited to, non-volatile and volatile media such as optical or magnetic disks and dynamic memory, respectively. Common forms of computer-readable storage media include a floppy disk, a flexible disk, a hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic storage medium, a CD-ROM disk, digital video disk (DVD), any other optical storage medium, RAM, PROM, EPROM, a FLASHEPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge.
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 descriptions are not intended to limit the scope of the technology to the particular forms set forth herein. Thus, the breadth and scope of a preferred embodiment should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments. It should be understood that the above description is illustrative and not restrictive. To the contrary, the present descriptions are intended to cover such alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as may be included within the spirit and scope of the technology as defined by the appended claims and otherwise appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. The scope of the technology should, therefore, be determined not with reference to the above description, but instead should be determined with reference to the appended claims along with their full scope of equivalents.
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 |
5175684 | Chong | 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 |
5488725 | Turtle et al. | Jan 1996 | 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 |
5587902 | Kugimiya | Dec 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 |
5850561 | Church et al. | 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 |
5960384 | Brash | Sep 1999 | A |
5963205 | Sotomayor | Oct 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 |
6185524 | Carus et al. | Feb 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 |
6598046 | Goldberg et al. | 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 |
7054803 | Eisele | 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 |
7200550 | Menezes et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
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 |
7584092 | Brockett et al. | Sep 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 |
7636656 | Nieh | Dec 2009 | B1 |
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 |
7974976 | Yahia et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7983897 | Chin et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8060360 | He | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8145472 | Shore et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8214196 | Yamada et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8219382 | Kim et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8234106 | Marcu et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8244519 | Bicici et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8249854 | Nikitin 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 |
8326598 | Macherey et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8380486 | Soricut et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8433556 | Fraser et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8442813 | Popat | May 2013 | B1 |
8468149 | Lung et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8504351 | Waibel et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8543563 | Nikoulina et al. | Sep 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 |
8694303 | Hopkins et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8762128 | Brants et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
8825466 | Wang et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8831928 | Marcu et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8886515 | Van Assche | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8886517 | Soricut et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8886518 | Wang et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8942973 | Viswanathan | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8943080 | Marcu et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8977536 | Och | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8990064 | Marcu et al. | Mar 2015 | 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 |
20020107683 | Eisele | Aug 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 |
20030004705 | Kempe | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009322 | Marcu | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023423 | Yamada et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030040900 | D'Agostini | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030061022 | Reinders | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030129571 | Kim | Jul 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 |
20030217052 | Rubenczyk et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233222 | Soricut et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040006560 | Chan et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015342 | Garst | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040023193 | Wen et al. | Feb 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 |
20050021323 | Li | 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 |
20050107999 | Kempe 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 |
20060015323 | Udupa et al. | 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 |
20060129424 | Chan | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136824 | Lin | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060142995 | Knight et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060150069 | Chang | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060165040 | Rathod et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167984 | Fellenstein et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060190241 | Goutte et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070015121 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016400 | Soricutt et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016401 | Ehsani et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033001 | Muslea et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043553 | Dolan | 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 |
20070112553 | Jacobson | May 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 |
20070208719 | Tran | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219774 | Quirk et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233460 | Lancaster et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233547 | Younger et al. | Oct 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 |
20080040095 | Sinha et al. | Feb 2008 | 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 |
20080195461 | Li et al. | Aug 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 |
20080300857 | Barbaiani et al. | Dec 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 |
20090198487 | Wong et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090234634 | Chen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234635 | Bhatt et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241115 | Raffo et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090248662 | Murdock | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090313006 | Tang | Dec 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 |
20110184722 | Sneddon et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110191096 | Sarikaya et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110191410 | Refuah et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110225104 | Soricut et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120016657 | He et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120096019 | Manickam et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120116751 | Bernardini et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136646 | Kraenzel et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120150441 | Ma et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120150529 | Kim et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120191457 | Minnis et al. | Jul 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 |
20130018650 | Moore et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130024184 | Vogel et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130103381 | Assche | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130124185 | Sarr et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130144594 | Bangalore et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130238310 | Viswanathan | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130290339 | LuVogt et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140006003 | Soricut et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140019114 | Travieso et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140188453 | Marcu et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20150106076 | Hieber; Felix ; et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
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 |
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 |
5452868 | Jan 2014 | JP |
1488338 | Apr 2010 | UA |
WO03083709 | Oct 2003 | WO |
WO03083710 | Oct 2003 | WO |
WO2004042615 | May 2004 | WO |
WO2007056563 | May 2007 | WO |
WO2011041675 | Apr 2011 | WO |
WO2011162947 | Dec 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Abney, Steven P. , “Parsing by Chunks,” 1991, Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, vol. 44, pp. 257-279. |
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 or Patentability and The Written Opinion, International application number PCT/US2008/004296. Oct. 6, 2009, 5 pgs. |
Document, Wikipedia.com, web.archive.org (Feb. 22, 2004) <http://web.archive.org/web/20040222202831 /http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiiDocument>, Feb. 22, 2004. |
Identifying, Dictionary.com, wayback.archive.org (Feb. 28, 2007) </http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identifying>, accessed Oct. 27, 2011 <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 Computational Linguistics, 1997, pp. 597-618. |
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,” 2003, Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 97-133 <URL: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J03/J03-1005.pdf>. |
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>. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Yasuda et al., “Automatic Machine Translation Selection Scheme to Output the Best Result,” Proc. of LREC, 2002, pp. 525-528. |
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. |
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, http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/pubs/. |
Galley 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. |
Agbago, A., et al., “Truecasing 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, Pennsylvania. |
Ambati, V., “Dependency Structure Trees in Syntax Based Machine Translation,” Spring 2008 Report <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/˜vamshi/publications/DependencyMT—report.pdf>, pp. 1-8. |
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 Retrieval,” SIGIR 97, Philadelphia, PA, © 1997, pp. 84-91. |
Bangalore, S. and Rambow, O., “Evaluation Metrics for Generation,” 2000, Proc. of the 1st International NaturalLanguage Generation Conf., vol. 14, pp. 1-8. |
Bangalore, S. and Rambow, O., “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-based 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 for Mutualized, Non-Commercial Translation,” 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, Association 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. |
Yossi, Cohen “Interpreter for FUF,” (available at ftp:lftp.cs.bgu.ac.il/ pUb/people/elhadad/fuf-life.lf) (downloaded Jun. 1, 2008). |
Corston-Oliver, Simon, “Beyond String Matching and Cue Phrases: Improving Efficiency and Coverage in Discourse 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, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 481-496. |
Dagan, I. and Itai, A., “Word Sense Disambiguation Using a Second Language Monolingual Corpus”, 1994, Association for Computational 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: A Preliminary Investigation”, 2000, SIGLEX Workshop on Word Senses and Multi-Linguality, pp. 1-9. |
Eisner, Jason, “Learning Non-Isomorphic Tree Mappings for Machine Translation,” 2003, in Proc. of the 41st Meeting of the ACL, pp. 205-208. |
Elhadad et al., “Floating Constraints in Lexical Choice”, 1996, ACL, vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 195-239. |
Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., “An Overview of SURGE: a Reusable Comprehensive Syntactic Realization Component,” 1996, Technical Report 96-03, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ben Gurion University, 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. |
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 Correspondences 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 in Sentences,” 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 the COLING-ACL, pp. 704-710. |
Langkilde, I. and Knight, K., “The Practical Value of N-Grams in Generation,” 1998, Proc. of the 9th International Natural Language Generation Workshop, pp. 248-255. |
Langkilde, Irene, “Forest-Based Statistical Sentence Generation,” 2000, Proc. of the 1st Conference on North American chapter of the ACL, Seattle, WA, pp. 170-177. |
Langkilde-Geary, Irene, “A Foundation for General-Purpose Natural Language Generation: Sentence Realization Using Probabilistic Models of Language,” 2002, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Southern California. |
Langkilde-Geary, Irene, “An Empirical Verification of Coverage and Correctness for a General-Purpose Sentence Generator,” 1998, Proc. 2nd Int'l Natural Language Generation Conference. |
Lee, Yue-Shi,“Neural Network Approach to Adaptive Learning: with an Application to Chinese Homophone Disambiguation,” IEEE 2001 pp. 1521-1526. |
Lita, L. et al. “tRuEcasIng,” 2003 Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (In Hinrichs, E. and Roth, D.- editors), pp. 152-159. |
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/lrec04/fontll, pp. 1-4. |
Mann, G. and Yarowsky, D., “Multipath Translation Lexicon Induction via Bridge Languages,” 2001, Proc. of the 2nd 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 [Front Matter]. |
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 Artificial Intelligence 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 Text Summarization, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. |
Marcu, Daniel, “Instructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts,” 1999, Discourse Annotation, 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 of the 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 of contents]. |
Meng et al.. “Generating Phonetic Cognates to Handle Named Entities in English-Chinese Cross-Language Spoken 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. on Spoken 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, Nature Magazine, vol. 400, pp. 133-137. |
Mooney, Raymond, “Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Bias in 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 in Natural 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 Memorization with Applications to Context-Free Parsing”, Computational . 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. of Empirical 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. DOl= 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. |
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. |
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 1997, pp. 107-110. |
Resnik, P. and Smith, A., “The Web as a Parallel Corpus,” Sep. 2003, Computational Linguistics, Special Issue 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-Hill Book Company [Front Matter]. |
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 [Front Matter]. |
Sang, E. and Buchholz, S., “Introduction to the CoNLL-2000 Shared Task: Chunking,” 2002, Proc. Of CoNLL-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 Word Sense 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 Conference on 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,” 1997, NTT Communication Science Laboratories, pp. 1-5. |
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 the Americas 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 on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1133-1140. |
Sun et al., “Chinese Named Entity Identification Using Class-based Language Model,” 2002, Proc. of 19th International 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 Parsed Corpora, 2003, pp. 5-22. |
Tiedemann, Jorg, “Automatic Construction of Weighted String Similarity Measures,” 1999, In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical 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 the North 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 the Annual 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 Language Processing (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 in Natural 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. Of New 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 Speech Communication, 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 Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 366-372. |
Wang, Ye-Yi, “Grammar Inference and Statistical Machine Translation,” 1998, Ph.D Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. |
Watanabe et al., “Statistical Machine Translation Based on Hierarchical Phrase Alignment,” 2002, 9th International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine 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 in Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA, pp. 315-16. |
Wu, Dekai, “A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Statistical Machine Translation,” 1996, Proc. of 34th Annual Meeting of the 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,” 2001, Proc. of the 39th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 523-530. |
Yamada, K. and Knight, K., “A Decoder for Syntax-Based Statistical MT,” 2001, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting 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, Japan Academic 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. |
Yarowsky, David, “Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling Supervised Methods,” 1995, 33rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 189-196. |
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. |
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. |
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, Dec. 17, 2007, 29, 1-39, retrieved at <http://www.palex.ru/fc/98/Translation%20Quality%Assurance%20Tools.pdf>. |
Specia et al. “Improving the Confidence of Machine Translation Quality Estimates,” MT Summit XII, Ottawa, Canada, 2009, 8 pages. |
Soricut et al., “TrustRank: Inducing Trust in Automatic Translations via Ranking”, published in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Jul. 2010), pp. 612-621. |
U.S. non-provisional patent application U.S. Appl. No. 11/454,212, filed on Jun. 15, 2006.U.S. non-provisional patent application U.S. Appl. No. 11/454,212, filed on Jun. 15, 2006. |
Editorial FreeLancer Association, Guidelines for Fees, https://web.archive.org/web/20090604130631/http://www.the-efa.org/res/code—2.php, Jun. 4, 2009, retrieved Aug. 9, 2014. |
Wasnak, L., “Beyond the Basics: How Much Should I Charge”, https://web.archive.org/web/20070121231531/http://www.writersmarket.com/assets/pdf/How—Much—Should—l—Charge.pdf, Jan. 21, 2007, retrieved Aug. 19, 2014. |
Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Sep. 18, 2014 in German Patent Application 10392450.7, filed Mar. 28, 2003. |
Examination Report mailed Jul. 22, 2013 in German Patent Application 112005002534.9, filed Oct. 12, 2005. |
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 Text Generation”, 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 Ney, Hermann, “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. |
Ren, Fuji and Shi, Hongchi, “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 Extraction 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., of the 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 Linguistics, vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 75-102. |
Galley et al., “Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation Models,” Jul. 2006, in Proc. Of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 961-968. |
Galley et al., “What's in a translation rule?”, 2004, in Proc. Of HLT/NAACL '04, pp. 1-8. |
Gaussier et al, “A Geometric View on Bilingual Lexicon Extraction from Comparable Corpora”, In Proceedings of ACL 2004, Jul. |
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 Translation Tasks”, 1999, Translating and the Computer 21, Proc. of the 21 st International Conf. 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. |
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. |
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. |
Klein et al., “Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing,” Jul. 2003, in Proc. of the 41st Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 423-430. |
Knight et al., “Integrating Knowledge Bases and Statistics in MT,” 1994, Proc. of the Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. |
Knight et al., “Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System”, 1995, Proc. Of the 14th 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 Artificial Intelligence, 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,” 1995, Proc. of the 33rd Annual Conference of the ACL, pp. 252-260. |
Knight, K. and Luk, S., “Building a Large-Scale Knowledge Base for Machine Translation,” 1994, Proc. of the 12th Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 773-778. |
Knight, K. and Marcu, D., “Statistics-Based Summarization—Step One: Sentence Compression,” 2000, American Association for Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 703-710. |
Knight, K. and Yamada, K., “A Computational Approach to Deciphering Unknown Scripts,” 1999, Proc. of the ACL Workshop 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, vol. 18, No. 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, vol. 25, No. 4. |
Knight, Kevin, “Integrating Knowledge Acquisition and Language Acquisition”, May 1992, Journal of Applied Intelligence, vol. 1, No. 4. |
Knight, Kevin, “Learning Word Meanings by Instruction,” 1996, Proc. of the D National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 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 Using the 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 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. |
Leusch et al.. , “A Novel String-to-String Distance Measure with Applications to Machine Translation Evaluation”, 2003, https://www-i6.informatik.rwth-aachen.de, pp. 1-8. |
Oflazer, Kemal., “Error-tolerant Finite-state Recognition with Application to Morphological Analysis and Spelling Correction”, 1996, https://www.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk, pp. 1-18. |
Snover et al., “A Study of Translation Edit Rate with Targeted Human Annotation”, 2006, https://www.cs.umd.edu/˜snover/pub/amta06/ter—amta.pdf, pp. 1-9. |
Levenshtein, V.I., “Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals”, 1966, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, vol. 163, No. 4, pp. 707-710. |
Kumar, Shankar, “Minimum Bayes-Risk Techniques in Automatic Speech Recognition and Statistical Machine Translation: A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,” Baltimore, MD Oct. 2004. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140149102 A1 | May 2014 | US |