Systems and methods for enhancing machine translation post edit review processes

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8886515
  • Patent Number
    8,886,515
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, October 19, 2011
    13 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 11, 2014
    10 years ago
Abstract
Systems and methods for enhancing machine translation post edit review processes are provided herein. According to some embodiments, methods for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document may include executing instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executed by a processor to calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document, compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values, associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values, and provide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.
Description
FIELD OF THE TECHNOLOGY

The present technology relates generally to systems and methods for enhancing machine translation post edit review processes, and more specifically, but not by way of limitation, to systems and methods that enhance machine translation post edit review processes by generating confidence estimations for machine translations of documents and displaying the confidence estimations in a color coded format.


BACKGROUND

Post edit processes are typically performed after machine translation of a document, and are often cumbersome processes. It will be understood that post editing processes may vary, depending upon the type of machine translation utilized to translate the document. Some machine translation processes involve the use of translation memory managers, often referred to as translation memory. These translation memory managers estimate the accuracy of machine translations by comparing the machine translations to translations stored in a database.


To create computer assisted translation (CAT) output, a document may be fragmented into segments, and memory translation and/or machine translation may be performed on each of the segments. It will be understood that segments may include either phrases or individual words. Next, one or more algorithms (e.g., linguistic rules, statistical knowledge, and so forth) may be applied to the segments. Additionally, by comparing the machine translated segments to previously translated segments, an estimate of the post editing complexity of the segment may be determined. For example, exact matches include translated segments that directly correspond (100% correspondence) to previously translated segments. For translated segments that do not directly match previously translated segments, confidence algorithms may be applied to the translated segments to determine a relative accuracy of the translation.


Moreover, while direct estimations of post editing complexity without the use of fuzzy matching algorithms are less expensive, post edit review of these directly estimated machine translations may require post editing analysis on each segment of the document.


SUMMARY OF THE TECHNOLOGY

According to some embodiments, the systems and methods provided herein may enhance machine translation post edit review processes. In some embodiments, the accuracy of a translated segment may be measured in terms of closeness. In turn, closeness may be defined as the number of primitive operations required to convert the translated segment into a perfect match. These primitive operations may include inserting, deleting, or substituting individual characters into the translated segment and evaluating the modified segment to determine if an exact match exists.


According to some embodiments, the present technology may be directed to methods for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document. The methods may include: (a) executing instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executed by a processor to: (i) calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document; (ii) compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values; (iii) associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; and (iv) provide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.


According to additional exemplary embodiments, the present technology may be directed to systems for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document. The exemplary systems may include: (a) a memory for storing executable instructions; (b) a processor for executing the instructions, the instructions including: (i) a confidence estimator module that calculates a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document; (ii) an analysis module that compares the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values and associates the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; and (iii) an interface module that provides the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.


According to other embodiments, the present technology may be directed to non-transitory computer readable storage media having a program embodied thereon, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document. The method may include: (a) executing instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executed by a processor to: (i) calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document; (ii) compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values; (iii) associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; and (iv) provide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary system architecture that be utilized to practice aspects of the present technology.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary application that enhanced machine translated post edit processes, the application being resident in memory of a web server.



FIG. 3 is an exemplary post edit review user interface.



FIG. 4 is an exemplary pie chart illustrating an estimated translation complexity for machine translated segments of a document.



FIG. 5 is an exemplary graphical representation that includes enhanced textual output for a machine translated segment.



FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document.



FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an exemplary computing system that may be utilized to practice aspects of the present disclosure.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

While this technology is susceptible of embodiment in many different forms, there is shown in the figures 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.


Generally speaking, the present technology may be directed to systems, methods, and media for enhancing machine translation post edit review processes. More specifically, the present technology may be configured to calculate a confidence estimate for a machine translated segment of a source document. It will be understood that the confidence estimate may represent an approximate translation accuracy level for the machine translated segment.


It is noteworthy to mention that prior to machine translation the source document may be divided into a plurality of segments. These segments may include phrases or individual words. Additionally, the segments may likewise be subdivided into individual units. This is particularly relevant when the segments are phrases rather than individual words.


After the calculation of a confidence estimate for each of the segments of the document, the confidence estimates may be compared to one or more benchmark values. It will be understood that any number of benchmark values may be established. By comparing confidence estimates to the one or more benchmark values, an estimated translation complexity may be established for each of the segments of the document. An estimated translation complexity may be utilized to approximate a relative difficulty to be encountered by a post edit reviewer when verifying the accuracy of the segment.


To enhance the post edit review process, each of the segments may be associated with a color. In some embodiments, the color selected may be based upon the confidence interval relative to the one or more benchmarking values. In this way, post edit reviewers may efficaciously determine segments which may be more complex to review by evaluating the color associated with the segment. Post edit reviewers may organize their review processes based upon the relative complexity of each segment.


According to some embodiments, the present technology may also be utilized to enhance post edit processes for hybrid translations. A hybrid translation of a document may be understood to include translated documents with segments that have been machine translated, along with one or more segments that correspond to translation memory output, as described in greater detail above. With regard to the segments that correspond to translation memory output, the color coding for a segment may be based on fuzzy matching for the translation memory output, while color coding for machine translated segments may be based upon the calculation of a confidence estimate for the segment.


In some embodiments, the present technology may provide the visual depictions of the color coded segments in a graphical format such as a bar chart, a pie graph, and so forth. In other embodiments, visual depictions may include graphical user interfaces, such as post editing interfaces.



FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary architecture 100 that may include a machine translation evaluation system, hereinafter “system 105” that, in turn, includes a plurality of client devices 110 (e.g., each of the client devices being associated with a post edit reviewer) that are communicatively couplable to the system 105 via a network 115. The network 115 may include a private or public communications channel such as the Internet.


According to some embodiments, the system 105 may include a cloud based computing environment that collects, analyzes, and publishes datasets. 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 such as web servers 120a-n 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 customers 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.


The system 105 may be generally described as a particular purpose computing environment that includes executable instructions that are configured to enhance machine translation post edit review processes. In some embodiments, an exemplary web server 120a may include executable instructions in the form of a machine translation evaluation application, hereinafter referred to as “application 200” that calculates and displays confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document.



FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the application 200. According to some embodiments, the application 200 may generally include an interface module 205, a confidence estimator module 210, and analysis module 215. It is noteworthy that the application 200 may include additional modules, engines, or components, and still fall within the scope of the present technology. As used herein, the term “module” may also refer to any of an application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”), an electronic circuit, a processor (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes one or more software or firmware programs, a combinational logic circuit, and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality. In other embodiments, individual modules of the application 200 may include separately configured web servers.


The interface module 205 may be configured to generate and provide a variety of user interfaces that allow post edit reviewers to interact with the system 105. The interface module 205 may generate web-based interfaces that are accessible via client devices 110. These web-based interfaces may be accessed via standalone applications resident on the client device 110 or by a suitable web browser executing on the client device 110.


The graphical user interfaces generated by the interface module 205 may display graphical representations of confidence estimations of machine translated segments of documents, as well as include input mechanisms that allow the post edit reviewer to modify machine translated segments.


Upon receiving machine translated segments of a document, the confidence estimator module 210 may be executed to calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segments of the document. The confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a document may be calculated by applying one or more accuracy estimating algorithms to the segment. For example, machine translated segments that include numerous unintelligible words may have a relatively low confidence estimation compared to machine translated segments in which all words contained in the machine translated segments are intelligible. Guidelines for determining a confidence estimation may include purely subject criteria established by translation reviewers or customers. One or ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that because confidence estimations may be based upon an infinite number of criterion, additional examples of suitable methods have been omitted for the purposes of brevity.


Once a confidence estimation has been calculated by the confidence estimator module 210, the analysis module 215 may be executed to compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values. In will be understood that a benchmark value may represent an accuracy threshold. For example, a benchmark value of 90% may be established. Machine translated segments having a confidence estimation that is equal to, or greater than, 90% may be placed into a high quality group of segments. The comparison of the confidence estimation to a benchmark value may establish an estimated translation complexity for the segment.


It will be understood that a plurality of benchmark values may be established that allow machine translated segments to be stratified into groups by estimated translation complexity. For example, benchmark values of 30%, 60%, and 90% may be established.


In some embodiments, each benchmark value may be associated with a particular color. After comparing the confidence estimation of a machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values, if the confidence estimation of the machine translated segment meets or exceeds a benchmark value, the machine translated segment may be associated with the color for the benchmark value. Returning to the above example, machine translated segments that include confidence estimations that are below 30% relative to a first benchmark value may be associated with a first color of red. Machine translated segments that include confidence estimations that are greater than 30% relative to a second benchmark value, but lower than 60% may be associated with a second color of yellow, and machine translated segments that include confidence estimations that are above 90% relative to a third benchmark value may be associated with a third color of green.


It is noteworthy to mention that in this example, machine translated segments associated with the color red may be readily identified as having a high estimated translation complexity relative to machine translated segments associated with the color green.


One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that few or greater number of benchmark values may be utilized to stratify the machine translated segment according to estimated translation complexity. Additionally, the benchmark values may each be associated with a unique color.


It will be understood that associations of color may be expressed or represented in graphical format, as will be discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 3.


According to some embodiments, when machine translated segments include sentences or phrases composed of individual words, the aforementioned processes and methods may be applied to individual words or unbroken character strings. That is, the present technology may be utilized on a granular, or word specific level. These individual words or unbroken strings may be referred to as “subunits” of the machine translated segment. Confidence estimations and estimated translation complexity may be calculated for each word in a machine translated segment. As such, individual words within the machine translated segment may be associated with a color. These individual words may be displayed in the grammatical order according to the original structure of the sentence.


In other embodiments, analysis module 215 may generate translation units that comprise both the source content utilized to create the machine translated segment, and the machine translated segment itself. These translation units may be provided to the post edit reviewer to aid in the review of the machine translated segment. Again, translation units may be generated on a granular or individual word level.



FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary user interface 300 generated by the interface module 205. Generally speaking, the user interface 300 includes a post edit review interface showing a plurality of machine translated segments that are each provided with a particular color. For example, segments 305b and 305e shown in rows 310b and 310e are associated with individual boxes having the color red, which may indicate a relative high estimated translation complexity. Column 315a may include the original source text for the machine translated segment. Column 315b may include the machine translated segment, also known as the machine translation output. Column 315c indicates a confidence estimation for a post edited version of the machine translated segment.


It is noteworthy to mention that each box may include a color that corresponds to the estimated translation complexity for the machine translated segment as previously calculated or determined. Other embodiments may include coloring the text of the machine translated segment, rather than providing the boxes with individual colors. Additionally, the colors of the boxes or text may be adjusted on-the-fly to assist post edit reviewers who may have difficulty discerning between the colors utilized by the system. Mechanisms for adjusting color may include slider mechanisms that allow for fine color tuning by the post edit reviewer.


The user interface 300 may include an options panel 320 that includes a plurality of input mechanisms for changing options associated with the system. For example, the options panel 320 may include radio buttons that, when selected, cause the system to show the segments of the machine translated segments in their original order (e.g., the original order of the sentence from which the segment was obtained). Other options may include the ability to rank the segments having the highest estimated translation complexity to the lowest estimated translation complexity in a vertical configuration, or vice-versa.


Additional options may include the ability to retain the color associated with a particular segment, even after the segment has been post edited, along with the ability to re-assess the estimated translation complexity of the segment after a segment has been post edit reviewed. The color associated with the re-assessed segment may be changed to reflect any change in the estimated translation complexity of the segment.


The user interface 300 may also include a status bar 325 that displays a total number of machine translated segments available, along with aggregate numbers that correspond to machine translated segments in particular categories, stratified by estimated translation complexity. For example, in FIG. 3, 210 machine translated segments have a relatively low estimated translation complexity, and so forth.


These aggregated numbers may be utilized to generate graphical representations of the estimated translation complexity for an entire document (or a group of machine translated segments). Post edit reviewers may utilize a graph button 330 that causes the system to automatically generate a graphical representation, as described in greater detail with reference to FIG. 4.



FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary graphical format in form of a pie chart 400. The pie chart 400 indicates that 68% of the machine translated segments have an estimated translation complexity that is “probably quite good,” 6% of the machine translated segments have an estimated translation complexity that is “maybe good,” 16% of the machine translated segments have an estimated translation complexity that is “probably quite bad,” and 10% of the machine translated segments have an estimated translation complexity that is categorized as “maybe bad.”


Therefore, by generating a graphical representation for the machine translated segments, a post edit reviewer may quickly and easily determine that the overall translation accuracy for the machine translated document quite good.



FIG. 5 illustrates another exemplary graphical representation of the estimated translation complexity for a machine translated segment, shown as an enhanced textual output 500. The enhanced textual output 500 may include a first text box 505 that illustrates the original source content in a first language, and a second text box 510 that illustrates a machine translation of the segment into a second language. Discrepancies 520a-c between the original source content and the machine translated segment are illustrated on a subunit (e.g., individual word) level by way of colored underlining. For example, date subunit 520b has been flagged as likely erroneous. This type of error may be determined by examining the format for the date subunit. Because common date subunits may have any one of the following formats: DD/MM/YY, DD/MM/YYYY, MM/DD/YY, MM/DD/YYYY, the system flags the date subunit because the year includes three characters, rather than two or four. Because it is highly likely that the date subunit 520b is erroneous, the date subunit 520b is underlined in red. Additionally, the machine translated segment may be illustrated in another text box 515 that does not include any coloring or enhancing.



FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary method 600 for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document. The method may be performed by a processor of a computing device that executes instructions stored in the memory.


In some embodiments, the instructions may be configured to optionally separate a source document into a plurality of segments which are to be machine translated, in step 605. It will be understood that the system may receive the source document in an already-segmented configuration. Next, the instructions may then calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document in step 610, and compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values in step 615.


Utilizing the comparison, the instructions may then associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values, in step 620. In some embodiments, step 620 may include generating an estimated translation complexity value for the machine translated segment.


Additionally, the instructions may then provide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device, in step 625. Exemplary graphical formats of machine translated segments may include generating pie charts for the machine translated segments that reflect the overall accuracy of the machine translation of the document.


After a post edit reviewer has edited a machine translated segment, the instructions may be executed to associate a color with the post edited segment based upon the determination of an estimated translation complexity for the post edited segment, in step 630.


Lastly, the instructions may be executed to provide, to a client device, both the machine translated segment in an original color with the post edited segment in an updated color, in step 635.


It will be understood that in some embodiments, the method may include additional or fewer steps. For example, other exemplary methods may include only the steps of receiving requests, selecting datasets, and publishing the selected datasets.



FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary computing system 700 that may be used to implement an embodiment of the present technology. The computing system 700 of FIG. 7 includes one or more processors 710 and main memory 720. Main memory 720 stores, in part, instructions and data for execution by processor 710. Main memory 720 can store the executable code when the computing system 700 is in operation. The computing system 700 of FIG. 7 may further include a mass storage device 730, portable storage devices 740, output devices 750, user input devices 760, a graphics display system 770, and other peripheral devices 780.


The components shown in FIG. 7 are depicted as being connected via a single bus 790. The components may be connected through one or more data transport means. Processor unit 710 and main memory 720 may be connected via a local microprocessor bus, and the mass storage device 730, peripheral device(s) 780, portable storage device(s) 740, and graphics display system 770 may be connected via one or more input/output (I/O) buses.


Mass storage device 730, 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 710. Mass storage device 730 can store the system software for implementing embodiments of the present technology for purposes of loading that software into main memory 720.


Portable storage device 740 operates in conjunction with a portable non-volatile storage media, such as a floppy disk, compact disk or digital video disc, to input and output data and code to and from the computing system 700 of FIG. 7. The system software for implementing embodiments of the present technology may be stored on such a portable media and input to the computing system 700 via the portable storage device 740.


User input devices 760 provide a portion of a user interface. User input devices 760 may include an alphanumeric keypad, such as a keyboard, for inputting alphanumeric and other information, or a pointing device, such as a mouse, a trackball, stylus, or cursor direction keys. Additionally, the computing system 700 as shown in FIG. 7 includes output devices 750. Suitable output devices include speakers, printers, network interfaces, and monitors.


Graphics display system 770 may include a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other suitable display device. Graphics display system 770 receives textual and graphical information, and processes the information for output to the display device.


Peripheral devices 780 may include any type of computer support device to add additional functionality to the computer system. Peripheral device(s) 780 may include a modem or a router.


The components contained in the computing system 700 of FIG. 7 are those typically found in computer systems that may be suitable for use with embodiments of the present technology and are intended to represent a broad category of such computer components that are well known in the art. Thus, the computing system 700 of FIG. 7 can be a personal computer, hand held computing system, telephone, mobile computing system, workstation, server, minicomputer, mainframe computer, or any other computing system. The computer can also include different bus configurations, networked platforms, multi-processor platforms, etc. Various operating systems can be used including UNIX, Linux, Windows, Macintosh OS, Palm OS, and other suitable operating systems.


Some of the above-described functions may be composed of instructions that are stored on storage media (e.g., computer-readable media). The instructions may be retrieved and executed by the processor. Some examples of storage media are memory devices, tapes, disks, and the like. The instructions are operational when executed by the processor to direct the processor to operate in accord with the technology. Those skilled in the art are familiar with instructions, processor(s), and storage media.


It is noteworthy that any hardware platform suitable for performing the processing described herein is suitable for use with the technology. The terms “computer-readable storage media” and “computer-readable storage media” as used herein refer to any media or media that participate in providing instructions to a CPU for execution. Such media can take many forms, including, but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media and transmission media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as a fixed disk. Volatile media include dynamic memory, such as system RAM. Transmission media include coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, among others, including the wires that comprise one embodiment of a bus. Transmission media can also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications. Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, a hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic media, a CD-ROM disk, digital video disk (DVD), any other optical media, any other physical media with patterns of marks or holes, a RAM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM, a FLASHEPROM, any other memory chip or data exchange adapter, a carrier wave, or any other media from which a computer can read.


Various forms of computer-readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to a CPU for execution. A bus carries the data to system RAM, from which a CPU retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by system RAM can optionally be stored on a fixed disk either before or after execution by a CPU.


The above description is illustrative and not restrictive. Many variations of the technology will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon review of this disclosure. 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.

Claims
  • 1. A method for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document, the method comprising: executing instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executed by a processor to: calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of the source document;compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values;associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; andprovide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.
  • 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the machine translated segment includes a subunit of the machine translated segment, the subunit of the machine translated segment including a string of characters from the machine translated segment.
  • 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein comparison of the confidence estimation to the one or more benchmark values is utilized to generate an estimated translation complexity for the machine translated segment.
  • 4. The method according to claim 3, wherein executing instructions stored in memory further comprises the instructions being executed by a processor to provide the machine translated segment to a client device, the machine translated segment including subunits that each have a color associated therewith.
  • 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein executing instructions stored in memory further comprises the instructions being executed by a processor to display a translation unit that includes source content of the document from which the machine translated segment was created, along with the machine translated segment.
  • 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the graphical format includes a pie chart having one or more wedges, each wedge including an aggregate number of machine translated segments that include the same color.
  • 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein machine translated segments with confidence estimations that meet or exceed a first benchmark value are associated with a first color, and machine translated segments with confidence estimations that meet or exceed a second benchmark value are associated with a second color.
  • 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the first benchmark value has a magnitude that is less than a magnitude of the second benchmark value.
  • 9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more benchmark values includes a plurality of benchmark values, each of the plurality of benchmark values being associated with a unique color, each of the plurality of benchmark values having different magnitude from the other benchmark values.
  • 10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: calculate a confidence estimation for a post edited segment, the post edited segment including a machine translated segment that has been post edited by a post edit reviewer;compare the confidence estimation for the post edited segment to one or more benchmark values; andassociate the post edited segment with an updated color based upon the confidence estimation for the post edited segment relative to the one or more benchmark values.
  • 11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising providing, via a user interface, the post edited segment having the updated color along with the machine translated segment having an original color, the difference between the updated color and the original color indicating a change in estimated translation complexity between the machine translated segment and the post edited segment.
  • 12. A system for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document, the system comprising: a memory for storing executable instructions;a processor for executing the instructions, the instructions including: a confidence estimator module that calculates a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document;an analysis module that compares the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values and associates the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; andan interface module that provides the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.
  • 13. The system according to claim 12, wherein the machine translated segment includes a subunit of the machine translated segment, the subunit of the machine translated segment including a string of characters from the machine translated segment.
  • 14. The system according to claim 13, wherein the interface module displays the subunits in order relative to the machine translated segment.
  • 15. The system according to claim 14, wherein the interface module provides the machine translated segment to a client device, the machine translated segment including subunits that each have a color associated therewith.
  • 16. The system according to claim 12, wherein the interface module displays a translation unit that includes source content of the document from which the machine translated segment was created, along with the machine translated segment.
  • 17. The system according to claim 12, wherein the interface module generates a graphical representation that includes a pie chart having one or more wedges, each wedge including an aggregate number of machine translated segments that include the same color.
  • 18. The system according to claim 12, wherein the analysis module associates machine translated segments with confidence estimations that meet or exceed a first benchmark value with a first color, and associates machine translated segments with confidence estimations that meet or exceed a second benchmark with a second color.
  • 19. The system according to claim 18, wherein the first benchmark value has a magnitude that is less than a magnitude of the second benchmark value.
  • 20. The system according to claim 12, wherein the analysis module utilizes a plurality of benchmark values, each of the plurality of benchmark values being associated with a unique color, each of the plurality of benchmark values having different magnitude from the other benchmark values.
  • 21. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a program embodied thereon, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method for displaying confidence estimations for machine translated segments of a source document, the method comprising: executing instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executed by a processor to: calculate a confidence estimation for a machine translated segment of a source document;compare the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment to one or more benchmark values;associate the machine translated segment with a color based upon the confidence estimation for the machine translated segment relative to the one or more benchmark values; andprovide the machine translated segment having the color in a graphical format, to a client device.
US Referenced Citations (370)
Number Name Date Kind
4502128 Okajima et al. Feb 1985 A
4599691 Sakaki et al. Jul 1986 A
4615002 Innes Sep 1986 A
4661924 Okamoto et al. Apr 1987 A
4787038 Doi et al. Nov 1988 A
4791587 Doi Dec 1988 A
4800522 Miyao et al. Jan 1989 A
4814987 Miyao et al. Mar 1989 A
4942526 Okajima et al. Jul 1990 A
4980829 Okajima et al. Dec 1990 A
5020112 Chou May 1991 A
5088038 Tanaka et al. Feb 1992 A
5091876 Kumano et al. Feb 1992 A
5146405 Church Sep 1992 A
5167504 Mann Dec 1992 A
5181163 Nakajima et al. Jan 1993 A
5212730 Wheatley et al. May 1993 A
5218537 Hemphill et al. Jun 1993 A
5220503 Suzuki et al. Jun 1993 A
5267156 Nomiyama Nov 1993 A
5268839 Kaji Dec 1993 A
5295068 Nishino et al. Mar 1994 A
5302132 Corder Apr 1994 A
5311429 Tominaga May 1994 A
5387104 Corder Feb 1995 A
5432948 Davis et al. Jul 1995 A
5442546 Kaji et al. Aug 1995 A
5477450 Takeda et al. Dec 1995 A
5477451 Brown et al. Dec 1995 A
5495413 Kutsumi et al. Feb 1996 A
5497319 Chong et al. Mar 1996 A
5510981 Berger et al. Apr 1996 A
5528491 Kuno et al. Jun 1996 A
5535120 Chong et al. Jul 1996 A
5541836 Church et al. Jul 1996 A
5541837 Fushimoto Jul 1996 A
5548508 Nagami Aug 1996 A
5644774 Fukumochi et al. Jul 1997 A
5675815 Yamauchi et al. Oct 1997 A
5687383 Nakayama et al. Nov 1997 A
5696980 Brew Dec 1997 A
5724593 Hargrave, III et al. Mar 1998 A
5752052 Richardson et al. May 1998 A
5754972 Baker et al. May 1998 A
5761631 Nasukawa Jun 1998 A
5761689 Rayson et al. Jun 1998 A
5768603 Brown et al. Jun 1998 A
5779486 Ho et al. Jul 1998 A
5781884 Pereira et al. Jul 1998 A
5794178 Caid et al. Aug 1998 A
5805832 Brown et al. Sep 1998 A
5806032 Sproat Sep 1998 A
5819265 Ravin et al. Oct 1998 A
5826219 Kutsumi Oct 1998 A
5826220 Takeda et al. Oct 1998 A
5845143 Yamauchi et al. Dec 1998 A
5848385 Poznanski et al. Dec 1998 A
5848386 Motoyama Dec 1998 A
5855015 Shoham Dec 1998 A
5864788 Kutsumi Jan 1999 A
5867811 O'Donoghue Feb 1999 A
5870706 Alshawi Feb 1999 A
5893134 O'Donoghue et al. Apr 1999 A
5903858 Saraki May 1999 A
5907821 Kaji et al. May 1999 A
5909681 Passera et al. Jun 1999 A
5930746 Ting Jul 1999 A
5966685 Flanagan et al. Oct 1999 A
5983169 Kozma Nov 1999 A
5987402 Murata et al. Nov 1999 A
5987404 Della Pietra et al. Nov 1999 A
5991710 Papineni et al. Nov 1999 A
5995922 Penteroudakis et al. Nov 1999 A
6018617 Sweitzer et al. Jan 2000 A
6031984 Walser Feb 2000 A
6032111 Mohri Feb 2000 A
6047252 Kumano et al. Apr 2000 A
6064819 Franssen et al. May 2000 A
6064951 Park et al. May 2000 A
6073143 Nishikawa et al. Jun 2000 A
6077085 Parry et al. Jun 2000 A
6092034 McCarley et al. Jul 2000 A
6119077 Shinozaki Sep 2000 A
6119078 Kobayakawa et al. Sep 2000 A
6131082 Hargrave, III et al. Oct 2000 A
6161082 Goldberg et al. Dec 2000 A
6182014 Kenyon et al. Jan 2001 B1
6182027 Nasukawa et al. Jan 2001 B1
6205456 Nakao Mar 2001 B1
6206700 Brown et al. Mar 2001 B1
6223150 Duan et al. Apr 2001 B1
6233544 Alshawi May 2001 B1
6233545 Datig May 2001 B1
6233546 Datig May 2001 B1
6236958 Lange et al. May 2001 B1
6269351 Black Jul 2001 B1
6275789 Moser et al. Aug 2001 B1
6278967 Akers et al. Aug 2001 B1
6278969 King et al. Aug 2001 B1
6285978 Bernth et al. Sep 2001 B1
6289302 Kuo Sep 2001 B1
6304841 Berger et al. Oct 2001 B1
6311152 Bai et al. Oct 2001 B1
6317708 Witbrock et al. Nov 2001 B1
6327568 Joost Dec 2001 B1
6330529 Ito Dec 2001 B1
6330530 Horiguchi et al. Dec 2001 B1
6356864 Foltz et al. Mar 2002 B1
6360196 Poznanski et al. Mar 2002 B1
6389387 Poznanski et al. May 2002 B1
6393388 Franz et al. May 2002 B1
6393389 Chanod et al. May 2002 B1
6415250 van den Akker Jul 2002 B1
6460015 Hetherington et al. Oct 2002 B1
6470306 Pringle et al. Oct 2002 B1
6473729 Gastaldo et al. Oct 2002 B1
6473896 Hicken et al. Oct 2002 B1
6480698 Ho et al. Nov 2002 B2
6490549 Ulicny et al. Dec 2002 B1
6498921 Ho et al. Dec 2002 B1
6502064 Miyahira et al. Dec 2002 B1
6529865 Duan et al. Mar 2003 B1
6535842 Roche et al. Mar 2003 B1
6587844 Mohri Jul 2003 B1
6604101 Chan et al. Aug 2003 B1
6609087 Miller et al. Aug 2003 B1
6647364 Yumura et al. Nov 2003 B1
6691279 Yoden et al. Feb 2004 B2
6745161 Arnold et al. Jun 2004 B1
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
6952665 Shimomura et al. Oct 2005 B1
6983239 Epstein Jan 2006 B1
6993473 Cartus Jan 2006 B2
6996518 Jones et al. Feb 2006 B2
6996520 Levin Feb 2006 B2
6999925 Fischer et al. Feb 2006 B2
7013262 Tokuda et al. Mar 2006 B2
7016827 Ramaswamy et al. Mar 2006 B1
7016977 Dunsmoir et al. Mar 2006 B1
7024351 Wang Apr 2006 B2
7031911 Zhou et al. Apr 2006 B2
7050964 Menzes et al. May 2006 B2
7085708 Manson Aug 2006 B2
7089493 Hatori et al. Aug 2006 B2
7103531 Moore Sep 2006 B2
7107204 Liu et al. Sep 2006 B1
7107215 Ghali Sep 2006 B2
7113903 Riccardi et al. Sep 2006 B1
7143036 Weise Nov 2006 B2
7146358 Gravano et al. Dec 2006 B1
7149688 Schalkwyk Dec 2006 B2
7174289 Sukehiro Feb 2007 B2
7177792 Knight et al. Feb 2007 B2
7191115 Moore Mar 2007 B2
7197451 Carter et al. Mar 2007 B1
7206736 Moore Apr 2007 B2
7209875 Quirk et al. Apr 2007 B2
7219051 Moore May 2007 B2
7239998 Xun Jul 2007 B2
7249012 Moore Jul 2007 B2
7249013 Al-Onaizan et al. Jul 2007 B2
7283950 Pournasseh et al. Oct 2007 B2
7295962 Marcu Nov 2007 B2
7295963 Richardson et al. Nov 2007 B2
7302392 Thenthiruperai et al. Nov 2007 B1
7319949 Pinkham Jan 2008 B2
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
7565281 Appleby Jul 2009 B2
7574347 Wang Aug 2009 B2
7580828 D'Agostini Aug 2009 B2
7580830 Al-Onaizan et al. Aug 2009 B2
7620538 Marcu et al. Nov 2009 B2
7624005 Koehn et al. Nov 2009 B2
7624020 Yamada et al. Nov 2009 B2
7627479 Travieso et al. Dec 2009 B2
7680646 Lux-Pogodalla et al. Mar 2010 B2
7689405 Marcu Mar 2010 B2
7698125 Graehl et al. Apr 2010 B2
7707025 Whitelock Apr 2010 B2
7711545 Koehn May 2010 B2
7716037 Precoda et al. May 2010 B2
7801720 Satake et al. Sep 2010 B2
7813918 Muslea et al. Oct 2010 B2
7822596 Elgazzar et al. Oct 2010 B2
7925494 Cheng et al. Apr 2011 B2
7957953 Moore Jun 2011 B2
7974833 Soricut et al. Jul 2011 B2
8060360 He Nov 2011 B2
8145472 Shore et al. Mar 2012 B2
8214196 Yamada et al. Jul 2012 B2
8244519 Bicici et al. Aug 2012 B2
8275600 Bilac et al. Sep 2012 B2
8315850 Furuuchi et al. Nov 2012 B2
8655642 Fux et al. Feb 2014 B2
8666725 Och Mar 2014 B2
8676563 Soricut et al. Mar 2014 B2
20010009009 Iizuka Jul 2001 A1
20010029455 Chin et al. Oct 2001 A1
20020002451 Sukehiro Jan 2002 A1
20020013693 Fuji Jan 2002 A1
20020040292 Marcu Apr 2002 A1
20020046018 Marcu et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020046262 Heilig et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020059566 Delcambre et al. May 2002 A1
20020078091 Vu et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020083029 Chun et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020087313 Lee et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020099744 Coden et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020111788 Kimpara Aug 2002 A1
20020111789 Hull Aug 2002 A1
20020111967 Nagase Aug 2002 A1
20020143537 Ozawa et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020152063 Tokieda et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020169592 Aityan Nov 2002 A1
20020188438 Knight et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188439 Marcu Dec 2002 A1
20020198699 Greene et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020198701 Moore Dec 2002 A1
20020198713 Franz et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030009322 Marcu Jan 2003 A1
20030023423 Yamada et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030040900 D'Agostini Feb 2003 A1
20030061022 Reinders Mar 2003 A1
20030144832 Harris Jul 2003 A1
20030154071 Shreve Aug 2003 A1
20030158723 Masuichi et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030176995 Sukehiro Sep 2003 A1
20030182102 Corston-Oliver et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030191626 Al-Onaizan et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030204400 Marcu et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030216905 Chelba et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030217052 Rubenczyk et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030233222 Soricut et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040015342 Garst Jan 2004 A1
20040024581 Koehn et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030551 Marcu et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040035055 Zhu et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040044530 Moore Mar 2004 A1
20040059708 Dean et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040068411 Scanlan Apr 2004 A1
20040098247 Moore May 2004 A1
20040102956 Levin May 2004 A1
20040102957 Levin May 2004 A1
20040111253 Luo et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040115597 Butt Jun 2004 A1
20040122656 Abir Jun 2004 A1
20040167768 Travieso et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040167784 Travieso et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040193401 Ringger et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040230418 Kitamura Nov 2004 A1
20040237044 Travieso et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040260532 Richardson et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050021322 Richardson et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021517 Marchisio Jan 2005 A1
20050026131 Elzinga et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050033565 Koehn Feb 2005 A1
20050038643 Koehn Feb 2005 A1
20050055199 Ryzchachkin et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060160 Roh et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050075858 Pournasseh et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050086226 Krachman Apr 2005 A1
20050102130 Quirk et al. May 2005 A1
20050125218 Rajput et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050149315 Flanagan et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050171757 Appleby Aug 2005 A1
20050204002 Friend Sep 2005 A1
20050228640 Aue et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050228642 Mau et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050228643 Munteanu et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050234701 Graehl et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050267738 Wilkinson et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060004563 Campbell et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015320 Och Jan 2006 A1
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
20060142995 Knight et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060150069 Chang Jul 2006 A1
20060167984 Fellenstein et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060190241 Goutte et al. Aug 2006 A1
20070016400 Soricutt et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016401 Ehsani et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070033001 Muslea et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050182 Sneddon et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070078654 Moore Apr 2007 A1
20070078845 Scott et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070083357 Moore et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070094169 Yamada et al. Apr 2007 A1
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
20070219774 Quirk et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070233460 Lancaster 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
20080052061 Kim et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080065478 Kohlmeier et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080114583 Al-Onaizan et al. May 2008 A1
20080154581 Lavi et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080183555 Walk Jul 2008 A1
20080215418 Kolve et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080249760 Marcu et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080270109 Och Oct 2008 A1
20080270112 Shimohata Oct 2008 A1
20080281578 Kumaran et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080307481 Panje Dec 2008 A1
20090076792 Lawson-Tancred Mar 2009 A1
20090083023 Foster et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090106017 D'Agostini Apr 2009 A1
20090119091 Sarig May 2009 A1
20090125497 Jiang et al. May 2009 A1
20090234634 Chen et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090241115 Raffo et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090326912 Ueffing Dec 2009 A1
20090326913 Simard et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100005086 Wang et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100017293 Lung et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100042398 Marcu et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100138210 Seo et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100138213 Bicici et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100174524 Koehn Jul 2010 A1
20110029300 Marcu et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110066643 Cooper et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110082684 Soricut et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110191410 Refuah et al. Aug 2011 A1
20120096019 Manickam et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120253783 Castelli et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120278302 Choudhury et al. Nov 2012 A1
20140006003 Soricut et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140019114 Travieso et al. Jan 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (8)
Number Date Country
0469884 Feb 1992 EP
0715265 Jun 1996 EP
0933712 Aug 1999 EP
0933712 Jan 2001 EP
07244666 Sep 1995 JP
10011447 Jan 1998 JP
11272672 Oct 1999 JP
WO03083709 Oct 2003 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (254)
Entry
Makoushina, J. (2007). Translation quality assurance tools: current state and future approaches. Translating and the Computer, 29, 1-39, retreived at <<http://www.palex.ru/fc/98/Translation%20Quality%20Assurance%20Tools.pdf.
Specia et al.,(2009) “Improving the Confidence of Machine Translation Quality Estimates,” MT Summit XII, Ottawa, Canada, 2009, 8 pages.
“Abney, Steven P. , ““Parsing by Chunks,”” 1991, Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, vol. 44,pp. 257-279.”
Agbago, A., et al., “True-casing for the Portage System,” In Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (Borovets, Bulgaria), Sep. 21-23, 2005, pp. 21-24.
Al-Onaizan et al., “Statistical Machine Translation,” 1999, JHU Summer Tech Workshop, Final Report, pp. 1-42.
“Al-Onaizan et al., ““Translating with Scarce Resources,”” 2000, 17th National Conference of the American Associationfor Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, pp. 672-678.”
Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight K., “Machine Transliteration of Names in Arabic Text,”Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Languages. Philadelphia, 2002.
“Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight, K., ““Named Entity Translation: Extended Abstract””, 2002, Proceedings of HLT-02, SanDiego, CA.”
“Al-Onaizan, Y. and Knight, K., ““Translating Named Entities Using Monolingual and Bilingual Resources,”” 2002, Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 400-408.”
“Alshawi et al., ““Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers,”” 2000, Computational Linguistics, vol. 26, pp. 45-60.”
Alshawi, Hiyan, “Head Automata for Speech Translation”, Proceedings of the ICSLP 96, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania.
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,”” 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, Assocation for Computational Linguistics, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1-37.
“Brill, Eric. ““Transformation-Based Error-Driven Learning and Natural Language Processing: A Case Study in Partof Speech Tagging””,1995, Computational Linguistics, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 543-565.”
“Brown et al., ““A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation,”” Jun. 1990, Computational Linguistics, vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 79-85.”
Brown et al., “Word-Sense Disambiguation Using Statistical Methods,” 1991, Proc. of 29th Annual ACL, pp. 264-270.
“Brown et al., ““The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation,”” 1993, ComputationalLinguistics, vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 263-311.”
“Brown, Ralf, ““Automated Dictionary Extraction for ““Knowledge-Free”” Example-Based Translation,””1997, Proc. of 7th Int'l Cont. on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in MT, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 111-118.”
“Callan et al., ““TREC and TIPSTER Experiments with INQUERY,”” 1994, Information Processing and Management,vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 327-343.”
Callison-Burch, C. et al., “Statistical Machine Translation with Word- and Sentence-aligned Parallel Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 21-26, 2004). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 1.
“Carl, Michael. ”“A Constructivist Approach to Machine Translation,” “1998, New Methods of Language Processingand Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 247-256. ”
“Chen, K. and Chen, H., ”“Machine Translation: An Integrated Approach,” “1995, Proc. of 6th Int'l Cont. on Theoreticaland Methodological Issue in MT, pp. 287-294.”
Cheng, P. et al., “Creating Multilingual Translation Lexicons with Regional Variations Using Web Corpora,” In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 21-26, 2004). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 53.
Cheung et al., “Sentence Alignment in Parallel, Comparable, and Quasi-comparable Corpora”, In Proceedings of LREC, 2004, pp. 30-33.
Chinchor, Nancy, “MUC-7 Named Entity Task Definition,” 1997, Version 3.5.
“Clarkson, P. and Rosenfeld, R., “Statistical Language Modeling Using the CMU-Cambridge Toolkit”, 1997, Proc. ESCA Eurospeech, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 2707-2710.”
Cohen et al., “Spectral Bloom Filters,” SIGMOD 2003, Jun. 9-12, 2003, ACM pp. 241-252.
Cohen, “Hardware-Assisted Algorithm for Full-text Large-Dictionary String Matching Using n-gram Hashing,” 1998, Information Processing and Management, vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 443-464.
Cohen, Yossi, “Interpreter for FUF,” (available at ftp:/lftp.cs.bgu.ac.il/ pUb/people/elhadad/fuf-life.lf).
Corston-Oliver, Simon, “Beyond String Matching and Cue Phrases: Improving Efficiency and Coverage inDiscourse Analysis”, 1998, The AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarization, pp. 9-15.
Covington, “An Algorithm to Align Words for Historical Comparison,” Computational Linguistics, 1996, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 481-496.
“Dagan, I. and Itai, A., ““Word Sense Disambiguation Using a Second Language Monolingual Corpus””, 1994, Association forComputational Linguistics, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 563-596.”
“Dempster et al., ““Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm””, 1977, Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society, vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 1-38.”
“Diab, M. and Finch, S., ““A Statistical Word-Level Translation Model for Comparable Corpora,”” 2000, In Proc.of theConference on Content Based Multimedia Information Access (RIAO).”
“Diab, Mona, ““An Unsupervised Method for Multilingual Word Sense Tagging Using Parallel Corpora: APreliminary Investigation””, 2000, SIGLEX Workshop on Word Senses and Multi-Linguality, pp. 1-9.”
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 RealizationComponent,”” 1996, Technical Report 96-03, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ben GurionUniversity, Beer Sheva, Israel.”
Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., “Controlling Content Realization with Functional Unification Grammars”, 1992, Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation, Dale et al. (eds)., Springer Verlag, pp. 89-104.
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., ““Knowledge Sources for Word-Level Translation Models,”” 2001, Conference on EmpiricalMethods in Natural Language Processing.”
“Kumar, R. and Li, H., ““Integer Programming Approach to Printed Circuit Board Assembly Time Optimization,”” 1995,IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing, Part B: Advance Packaging, vol. 18,No. 4. pp. 720-727.”
Kupiec, Julian, “An Algorithm for Finding Noun Phrase 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 inSentences,”” 1994, Proc. of COL-LING '94, vol. 2, pp. 1123-1127.”
“Langkilde, I. and Knight, K., ““Generation that Exploits Corpus-Based Statistical Knowledge,”” 1998, Proc. of theCOLING-ACL, pp. 704-710.”
“Langkilde, I. and Knight, K., ““The Practical Value of N-Grams in Generation,”” 1998, Proc. of the 9th InternationalNatural Language Generation Workshop, pp. 248-255.”
“Langkilde, Irene, ““Forest-Based Statistical Sentence Generation,”” 2000, Proc. of the 1st Conference on NorthAmerican chapter of the ACL, Seattle, WA, pp. 170-177.”
“Langkilde-Geary, Irene, ““A Foundation for General-Purpose Natural Language Generation: SentenceRealization Using Probabilistic Models of Language,”” 2002, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School, Universityof Southern California.”
“Langkilde-Geary, Irene, ““An Empirical Verification of Coverage and Correctness for a General-PurposeSentence Generator,”” 1998, Proc. 2nd Int'l Natural Language Generation Conference.”
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 the2nd Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 151-158.”
“Manning, C. and Schutze, H., ““Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing,”” 2000, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA [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 ArtificialIntelligence and Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1069-1074.”
“Marcu, Daniel, ““Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text,”” 1999, Advances in Automatic TextSummarization, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.”
“Marcu, Daniel, ““Instructions for Manually Annotating the Discourse Structures of Texts,”” 1999, DiscourseAnnotation, pp. 1-49.”
“Marcu, Daniel, ““The Rhetorical Parsing of Natural Language Texts,”” 1997, Proceedings of ACLIEACL '97, pp. 96-103.”
“Marcu, Daniel, ““The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural Language Texts,”” 1997, Ph.D.Thesis, Graduate Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.”
“Marcu, Daniel, ““Towards a Unified Approach to Memory- and Statistical-Based Machine Translation,”” 2001, Proc.of the 39th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 378-385.”
McCallum, A. and Li, W., “Early Results for Named Entity Recognition with Conditional Random Fields, Feature Induction and Web-enhanced Lexicons,” In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL, 2003, vol. 4 (Edmonton, Canada), Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, pp. 188-191.
McDevitt, K. et al., “Designing of a Community-based Translation Center,” Technical Report TR-03-30, Computer Science, Virginia Tech, © 2003, pp. 1-8.
“Melamed, I. Dan, ““A Word-to-Word Model of Translational Equivalence,”” 1997, Proc. of the 35th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, Madrid, Spain, pp. 490-497.”
“Melamed, I. Dan, ““Automatic Evaluation and Uniform Filter Cascades for Inducing N-Best Translation Lexicons,””1995, Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Boston, MA, pp. 184-198.”
“Melamed, I. Dan, ““Empirical Methods for Exploiting Parallel Texts,”” 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA [table ofcontents].”
“Meng et al.. ““Generating Phonetic Cognates to Handle Named Entities in English-Chinese Cross-LanguageSpoken Document Retrieval,”” 2001, IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding. pp. 311-314.”
Metze, F. et al., “The NESPOLE! Speech-to-Speech Translation System,” Proc. of the HLT 2002, 2nd Int'l Conf. on Human Language Technology (San Francisco, CA), © 2002, pp. 378-383.
“Mikheev et al., ““Named Entity Recognition without Gazeteers,”” 1999, Proc. of European Chapter of the ACL, Bergen,Norway, pp. 1-8.”
“Miike et al., ““A Full-Text Retrieval System with a Dynamic Abstract Generation Function,”” 1994, Proceedings of SI-GIR'94, pp. 152-161.”
“Mohri, M. and Riley, M., ““An Efficient Algorithm for the N-Best-Strings Problem,”” 2002, Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. onSpoken Language Processing (ICSLP'02), Denver, CO, pp. 1313-1316.”
Mohri, Mehryar, “Regular Approximation of Context Free Grammars Through Transformation”, 2000, pp. 251-261, “Robustness in Language and Speech Technology”, Chapter 9, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
“Monasson et al., ““Determining Computational Complexity from Characteristic ‘Phase Transitions’,”” Jul. 1999, NatureMagazine, vol. 400, pp. 133-137.”
“Mooney, Raymond, ““Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Biasin Machine Learning,”” Proc. of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 82-91.”
Nagao, K. et al., “Semantic Annotation and Transcoding: Making Web Content More Accessible,” IEEE Multimedia, vol. 8, Issue 2 Apr.-Jun. 2001, pp. 69-81.
“Nederhof, M. and Satta, G., ““IDL-Expressions: A Formalism for Representing and Parsing Finite Languages inNatural Language Processing,”” 2004, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 21, pp. 281-287.”
“Nieben, S. and Ney, H, ““Toward Hierarchical Models for Statistical Machine Translation of Inflected Languages,”” 2001,Data-Driven Machine Translation Workshop, Toulouse, France, pp. 47-54.”
Norvig, Peter, “Techniques for Automatic Memoization with Applications to Context-Free Parsing”, Compuational Linguistics,1991, pp. 91-98, vol. 17, No. 1.
“Och et al., ““Improved Alignment Models for Statistical Machine Translation,”” 1999, Proc. of the Joint Conf. ofEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora, pp. 20-28.”
Och et al. “A Smorgasbord of Features for Statistical Machine Translation.” HLTNAACL Conference. Mar. 2004, 8 pages.
Och, F., “Minimum Error Rate Training in Statistical Machine Translation,” In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics—vol. 1 (Sapporo, Japan, Jul. 7-12, 2003). Annual Meeting of the ACL. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 160-167. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075096.
“Och, F. and Ney, H, ““Improved Statistical Alignment Models,”” 2000, 38th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Hong Kong, pp. 440-447.”
Och, F. and Ney, H., “Discriminative Training and Maximum Entropy Models for Statistical Machine Translation,” 2002, Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 295-302.
Och, F. and Ney, H., “A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models,” Computational Linguistics, 2003, 29:1, 19-51.
“Papineni et al., ““Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation,”” 2001, IBM Research Report, RC22176(WQ102-022).”
Perugini, Saviero et al., “Enhancing Usability in CITIDEL: Multimodal, Multilingual and Interactive Visualization Interfaces,” JCDL '04, Tucson, AZ, Jun. 7-11, 2004, pp. 315-324.
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.
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.
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.
“Elhadad, Michael, ““FUF: the Universal Unifier User Manual Version 5.2””, 1993, Department of Computer Science,Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel.”
“Elhadad, Michael, ““Using Argumentation to Control Lexical Choice: A Functional Unification Implementation””,1992, Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University.”
“Elhadad, M. and Robin, J., ““SURGE: a Comprehensive Plug-in Syntactic Realization Component for TextGeneration””, 1999 (available at http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/-elhadad/pub.html),”.
Fleming, Michael et al., “Mixed-Initiative Translation of Web Pages,” AMTA 2000, LNAI 1934, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2000, pp. 25-29.
Och, Franz Josef and 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, ofthe Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Boston, MA, pp. 173-183.”
“Gale, W. and Church, K., ““A Program for Aligning Sentences in Bilingual Corpora,”” 1991, 29th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, pp. 177-183.”
Gale W. and Church K., “A Program for Aligning Sentences in Bilingual Corpora,” 1993, Computational 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?”, 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, July.
“Germann et al., ““Fast Decoding and Optimal Decoding for Machine Translation””, 2001, Proc. of the 39th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, Toulouse, France, pp. 228-235.”
“Germann, Ulrich: ““Building a Statistical Machine Translation System from Scratch: How Much Bang for theBuck Can We Expect?”” Proc. of the Data-Driven MT Workshop of ACL-01, Toulouse, France, 2001.”
Gildea, D., “Loosely Tree-based Alignment for Machine Translation,” In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Assoc. for Computational Linguistics—vol. 1 (Sapporo, Japan, Jul. 7-12, 2003). Annual Meeting of the ACL Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 80-87. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075107.
“Grefenstette, Gregory, ““The World Wide Web as a Resource for Example-Based Machine TranslationTasks””, 1999, Translating and the Computer 21, Proc. of the 21 st International Cant. on Translating and theComputer. London, UK, 12 pp.”
Grossi et al, “Suffix Trees and Their Applications in String Algorithms”, In. Proceedings of the 1st South American Workshop on String Processing, Sep. 1993, pp. 57-76.
Gupta et al., “Kelips: Building an Efficient and Stable P2P DHT thorough Increased Memory and Background Overhead,” 2003 IPTPS, LNCS 2735, pp. 160-169.
Habash, Nizar, “The Use of a Structural N-gram Language Model in Generation-Heavy Hybrid Machine Translation,” University of Maryland, Univ. Institute for Advance Computer Studies, Sep. 8, 2004.
“Hatzivassiloglou, V. et al., ““Unification-Based Glossing””, 1995, Proc. of the International Joint Conference onArtificial Intelligence, pp. 1382-1389.”
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 Associationfor Machine Translation in the Americas.”
“Knight et al., ““Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System””, 1995, Proc. ofthe14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, vol. 2, pp. 1390-1396.”
“Knight, K. and Al-Onaizan, Y., ““A Primer on Finite-State Software for Natural Language Processing””, 1999 (available at http://www.isLedullicensed-sw/carmel).”
Knight, K. and Al-Onaizan, Y., “Translation with Finite-State Devices,” Proceedings of the 4th AMTA Conference, 1998.
“Knight, K. and Chander, I., ““Automated Postediting of Documents,”” 1994, Proc. of the 12th Conference on ArtificialIntelligence, pp. 779-784.”
Knight, K. and Graehl, J., “Machine Transliteration”, 1997, Proc. of the ACL-97, Madrid, Spain, pp. 128-135.
“Knight, K. and Hatzivassiloglou, V., ““Two-Level, Many-Paths Generation,”” 1995, Proc. of the 33rd AnnualConference of the ACL, pp. 252-260.”
“Knight, K. and Luk, S., ““Building a Large-Scale Knowledge Base for Machine Translation,”” 1994, Proc. of the 12thConference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 773-778.”
“Knight, K. and Marcu, D., ““Statistics-Based Summarization—Step One: Sentence Compression,”” 2000, AmericanAssociation for Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 703-710.”
“Knight, K. and Yamada, K., ““A Computational Approach to Deciphering Unknown Scripts,”” 1999, Proc. of the ACLWorkshop on Unsupervised Learning in Natural Language Processing.”
“Knight, Kevin, ““A Statistical MT Tutorial Workbook,”” 1999, JHU Summer Workshop (available at http://www.isLedu/natural-language/mUwkbk.rtf).”
Knight, Kevin, “Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Machine Translation,” 1997, AI Magazine, 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 AppliedIntelligence, vol. 1, No. 4.”
“Knight, Kevin, ““Learning Word Meanings by Instruction,”” 1996, Proc. of the D National Conference on ArtificialIntelligence, vol. 1, pp. 447-454.”
Knight, Kevin, “Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey,” 1989, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 21, No. 1.
Koehn, Philipp, “Noun Phrase Translation,” A PhD Dissertation for the University of Southern California, pp. xiii, 23, 25-57, 72-81, Dec. 2003.
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., ““ChunkMT: Statistical Machine Translation with Richer Linguistic Knowledge,”” Apr. 2002,Information Sciences Institution.”
“Koehn, P. and Knight, K., ““Estimating Word Translation Probabilities from Unrelated Monolingual Corpora Usingthe EM Algorithm,”” 2000, Proc. of the 17th meeting of the AAAI.”
“Rapp, Reinhard, ““Identifying Word Translations in Non-Parallel Texts,”” 1995, 33rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 320-322.”
“Resnik, P. and Smith, A., ““The Web as a Parallel Corpus,”” Sep. 2003, Computational Linguistics, SpecialIssue 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. ofCoNLL-2000 and LLL-2000, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 127-132.”
Schmid, H., and Schulte im Walde, S., “Robust German Noun Chunking With a Probabilistic Context-Free Grammar,” 2000, Proc. of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 726-732.
“Schutze, Hinrich, ““Automatic Word Sense Discrimination,”” 1998, Computational Linguistics, Special Issue on WordSense Disambiguation, vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 97-123.”
“Selman et al., ““A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems,”” 1992, Proc. of the 10th National Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA, pp. 440-446.”
Kumar, S. and Byrne, W., “Minimum Bayes-Risk Decoding for Statistical Machine Translation.” HLTNAACL Conference. Mar. 2004, 8 pages.
“Shapiro, Stuart (ed.), ““Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edition””, vol. D 2,1992, John Wiley & Sons Inc;““Unification”” article, K. Knight, pp. 1630-1637.”
“Sobashima et al., ““A Bidirectional Transfer-Driven Machine Translation System for Spoken Dialogues,”” 1994, Proc.of 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 64-68.”
“Soricut et al., ““Using a Large Monolingual Corpus to Improve Translation Accuracy,”” 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2499, Proc. of the 5th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in theAmericas on Machine Translation: From Research to Real Users, pp. 155-164.”
“Stalls, B. and Knight, K., ““Translating Names and Technical Terms in Arabic Text,”” 1998, Proc. of the COLING/ACL Workkshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Language.”
“Sumita et al., ““A Discourse Structure Analyzer for Japanese Text,”” 1992, Proc. of the International Conference onFifth Generation Computer Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1133-1140.”
“Sun et al., ““Chinese Named Entity Identification Using Class-based Language Model,”” 2002, Proc. of 19thInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan, vol. 1, pp. 1-7.”
Tanaka, K. and Iwasaki, H. “Extraction of Lexical Translations from Non-Aligned Corpora,” Proceedings of COLING 1996.
Taskar, B., et al., “A Discriminative Matching Approach to Word Alignment,” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Vancouver, BC, Canada, Oct. 6-8, 2005). Human Language Technology Conference. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ.
“Taylor et al., ““The Penn Treebank: An Overview,”” in A. Abeill (ed.), D Treebanks: Building and Using ParsedCorpora, 2003, pp. 5-22.”
“Tiedemann, Jorg, ““Automatic Construction of Weighted String Similarity Measures,”” 1999, In Proceedings ofthe Joint SIGDAT Conference on Emperical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora.”
“Tillman, C. and Xia, F., ““A Phrase-Based Unigram Model for Statistical Machine Translation,”” 2003, Proc. of. theNorth American Chapter of the ACL on Human Language Technology, vol. 2, pp. 106-108.”
“Tillmann et al., ““A DP Based Search Using Monotone Alignments in Statistical Translation,”” 1997, Proc. of theAnnual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 366-372.”
Tomas, J., “Binary Feature Classification for Word Disambiguation in Statistical Machine Translation,” Proceedings of the 2nd Int'l. Workshop on Pattern Recognition, 2002, pp. 1-12.
Uchimoto, K. et al., “Word Translation by Combining Example-Based Methods and Machine Learning Models,” Natural LanguageProcessing (Shizen Gengo Shori), vol. 10, No. 3, Apr. 2003, pp. 87-114.
Uchimoto, K. et al., “Word Translation by Combining Example-Based Methods and Machine Learning Models,” Natural LanguageProcessing (Shizen Gengo Shori), vol. 10, No. 3, Apr. 2003, pp. 87-114. (English Translation).
“Ueffing et al., ““Generation of Word Graphs in Statistical Machine Translation,”” 2002, Proc. of Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 156-163.”
Varga et al., “Parallel Corpora for Medium Density Languages”, In Proceedings of RANLP 2005, pp. 590-596.
“Veale, T. and Way, A., ““Gaijin: A Bootstrapping, Template-Driven Approach to Example-Based MT,”” 1997, Proc. ofNew Methods in Natural Language Processing (NEMPLP97), Sofia, Bulgaria.”
Vogel et al., “The CMU Statistical Machine Translation System,” 2003, Machine Translation Summit IX, New Orleans, LA.
“Vogel et al., ““The Statistical Translation Module in the Verbmobil System,”” 2000, Workshop on Multi-Lingual SpeechCommunication, pp. 69-74.”
“Vogel, S. and Ney, H., ““Construction of a Hierarchical Translation Memory,”” 2000, Proc. of Cooling 2000, Saarbrucken, Germany, pp. 1131-1135.”
“Wang, Y. and Waibel, A., ““Decoding Algorithm in Statistical Machine Translation,”” 1996, Proc. of the 35th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 366-372.”
“Wang, Ye-Yi, ““Grammar Inference and Statistical Machine Translation,”” 1998, Ph.D Thesis, Carnegie MellonUniversity, Pittsburgh, PA.”
“Watanabe et al., ““Statistical Machine Translation Based on Hierarchical Phrase Alignment,”” 2002, 9th InternationalConference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machin Translation (TMI-2002), Keihanna, Japan, pp. 188-198.”
“Witbrock, M. and Mittal, V., ““Ultra-Summarization: A Statistical Approach to Generating Highly Condensed Non-Extractive Summaries,”” 1999, Proc. of SIGIR '99, 22nd International Conference on Research and Development inInformation Retrieval, Berkeley, CA, pp. 315-316.”
“Wu, Dekai, ““A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Statistical Machine Translation,”” 1996, Proc. of 34th Annual Meeting ofthe ACL, pp. 152-158.”
“Wu, Dekai, ““Stochastic Inversion Transduction Grammars and Bilingual Parsing of Parallel Corpora,”” 1997, Computational Linguistics, vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 377-403.”
“Yamada, K. and Knight, K. ““A Syntax-Based Statistical Translation Model,”” 2001, Proc. of the 39th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 523-530.”
“Yamada, K. and Knight, K., ““A Decoder for Syntax-Based Statistical MT,”” 2001, Proceedings of the 40th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pp. 303-310.”
Yamada K., “A Syntax-Based Statistical Translation Model,” 2002 PhD Dissertation, pp. 1-141.
“Yamamoto et al., ““A Comparative Study on Translation Units for Bilingual Lexicon Extraction,”” 2001, JapanAcademic Association for Copyright Clearance, Tokyo, Japan.”
Yamamoto et al, “Acquisition of Phrase-level Bilingual Correspondence using Dependency Structure” In Proceedings of COLING-2000, pp. 933-939.
“Yarowsky, David, ““Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling Supervised Methods,”” 1995, 33rd AnnualMeeting 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.
Zhang et al., “Distributed Language Modeling for N-best List Re-ranking,” In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Sydney, Australia, Jul. 22-23, 2006). ACL Workshops. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 216-223.
Patent Cooperation Treaty International Preliminary Report on Patentability and the Written Opinion, Internationalapplication No. PCT/US2008/004296, Oct. 6, 2009, 5 pgs.
Document, Wikipedia.com, web.archive.org (Feb. 24, 2004) <http://web.archive.org/web/20040222202831 /http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiiDocument>, Feb. 24, 2004.
Identifying, Dictionary.com, wayback.archive.org (Feb. 28, 2007) <http://wayback.archive.org/web/200501 01 OOOOOO*/http:////dictionary.reference.com//browse//identifying>, Feb. 28, 2005 <http://web.archive.org/web/20070228150533/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identifying>.
Koehn, P. et al, “Statistical Phrase-Based Translation,” Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003 Main Papers , pp. 48-54 Edmonton, May-Jun. 2003.
Abney, S.P., “Stochastic Attribute Value Grammars”, Association for Computional Linguistics, 1997, pp. 597-618.
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, 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.
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>.
Yossi, Cohen “Interpreter for FUF,” available at URL <ftp://ftp.cs.bgu.ac.il/pub/people/elhadad/fuf-life.lf> (downloaded Jun. 1, 2008).
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.
Rayner et al.,“Hybrid Language Processing in the Spoken Language Translator,” IEEE 1997, pp. 107-110.
Shirai, S., “A Hybrid Rule and Example-based Method for Machine Translation,” 1997, NTT Communication Science Laboratories, pp. 1-5.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20130103381 A1 Apr 2013 US