Machine Translation Overview

Machine Translation Overview Alon Lavie Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University LTI Immigration Course August 24, 2006

Machine Translation: History • MT started in 1940’s, one of the first conceived application of computers • Promising “toy” demonstrations in the 1950’s, failed miserably to scale up to “real” systems • AIPAC Report: MT recognized as an extremely difficult, “AI-complete” problem in the early 1960’s • MT Revival started in earnest in 1980s (US, Japan) • Field dominated by rule-based approaches, requiring 100s of K-years of manual development • Economic incentive for developing MT systems for small number of language pairs (mostly European languages) LTI IC 2006

Machine Translation: Where are we today? • Age of Internet and Globalization – great demand for MT: • Multiple official languages of UN, EU, Canada, etc. • Documentation dissemination for large manufacturers (Microsoft, IBM, Caterpillar) • Economic incentive is still primarily within a small number of language pairs • Some fairly good commercial products in the market for these language pairs • Primarily a product of rule-based systems after many years of development • Pervasive MT between most language pairs still non-existent and not on the immediate horizon LTI IC 2006

Example of Current Best MT PAHO’s Spanam system: • Mediante petición recibida por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante …) el 6 de octubre de 1997, el señor Lino César Oviedo (en adelante …) denunció que la República del Paraguay (en adelante …) violó en su perjuicio los derechos a las garantías judiciales … en su contra. • Through petition received by the `Inter-American Commission on Human Rights` (hereinafter …) on 6 October 1997, Mr. Linen César Oviedo (hereinafter “the petitioner”) denounced that the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter …) violated to his detriment the rights to the judicial guarantees, to the political participation, to // equal protection and to the honor and dignity consecrated in articles 8, 23, 24 and 11, respectively, of the `American Convention on Human Rights` (hereinafter …”), as a consequence of judgments initiated against it. LTI IC 2006

Core Challenges of MT • Ambiguity: • Human languages are highly ambiguous, and differently in different languages • Ambiguity at all “levels”: lexical, syntactic, semantic, language-specific constructions and idioms • Amount of required knowledge: • At least several 100k words, at least as many phrases, plus syntactic knowledge (i.e. translation rules). How do you acquire and construct a knowledge base that big that is (even mostly) correct and consistent? LTI IC 2006

How to Tackle the Core Challenges • Manual Labor: 1000s of person-years of human experts developing large word and phrase translation lexicons and translation rules. Example: Systran’s RBMT systems. • Lots of Parallel Data: data-driven approaches for finding word and phrase correspondences automatically from large amounts of sentence-aligned parallel texts. Example: Statistical MT systems. • Learning Approaches: learn translation rules automatically from small amounts of human translated and word-aligned data. Example: AVENUE’s XFER approach. • Simplify the Problem: build systems that are limited-domain or constrained in other ways. Examples: CATALYST, NESPOLE!. LTI IC 2006

State-of-the-Art in MT • What users want: • General purpose (any text) • High quality (human level) • Fully automatic (no user intervention) • We can meet any 2 of these 3 goals today, but not all three at once: • FA HQ: Knowledge-Based MT (KBMT) • FA GP: Corpus-Based (Example-Based) MT • GP HQ: Human-in-the-loop (efficiency tool) LTI IC 2006

Types of MT Applications: • Assimilation: multiple source languages, uncontrolled style/topic. General purpose MT, no semantic analysis. (GP FA or GP HQ) • Dissemination: one source language, controlled style, single topic/domain. Special purpose MT, full semantic analysis. (FA HQ) • Communication: Lower quality may be okay, but system robustness, real-time required. LTI IC 2006

Approaches to MT:Vaquois MT Triangle Interlingua Give-information+personal-data (name=alon_lavie) Generation Analysis Transfer [s [vp accusative_pronoun “chiamare” proper_name]] [s [np [possessive_pronoun “name”]] [vp “be” proper_name]] Direct Mi chiamo Alon Lavie My name is Alon Lavie LTI IC 2006

Analysis and GenerationMain Steps • Analysis: • Morphological analysis (word-level) and POS tagging • Syntactic analysis and disambiguation (produce syntactic parse-tree) • Semantic analysis and disambiguation (produce symbolic frames or logical form representation) • Map to language-independent Interlingua • Generation: • Generate semantic representation in TL • Sentence Planning: generate syntactic structure and lexical selections for concepts • Surface-form realization: generate correct forms of words LTI IC 2006

Direct Approaches • No intermediate stage in the translation • First MT systems developed in the 1950’s-60’s (assembly code programs) • Morphology, bi-lingual dictionary lookup, local reordering rules • “Word-for-word, with some local word-order adjustments” • Modern Approaches: EBMT and SMT LTI IC 2006

Statistical MT (SMT) • Proposed by IBM in early 1990s: a direct, purely statistical, model for MT • Statistical translation models are trained on a sentence-aligned parallel bilingual corpus • Train word-level alignment models • Extract phrase-to-phrase correspondences • Apply them at runtime on source input and “decode” • Attractive: completely automatic, no manual rules, much reduced manual labor • Main drawbacks: • Effective only with large volumes (several mega-words) of parallel text • Broad domain, but domain-sensitive • Still viable only for small number of language pairs! • Impressive progress in last 5 years • Large DARPA funding programs (TIDES, GALE) • Lots of research in this direction • GIZA++, Pharoah, CAIRO LTI IC 2006

EBMT Paradigm New Sentence (Source) Yesterday, 200 delegates met with President Clinton. Matches to Source Found Yesterday, 200 delegates met behind closed doors… Difficulties with President Clinton… Gestern trafen sich 200 Abgeordnete hinter verschlossenen… Schwierigkeiten mit Praesident Clinton… Alignment (Sub-sentential) Yesterday, 200 delegates met behind closed doors… Difficulties with President Clinton over… Gestern trafen sich 200 Abgeordnete hinter verschlossenen… Schwierigkeiten mit Praesident Clinton… Translated Sentence (Target) Gestern trafen sich 200 Abgeordnete mit Praesident Clinton.

Transfer Approaches • Syntactic Transfer: • Analyze SL input sentence to its syntactic structure (parse tree) • Transfer SL parse-tree to TL parse-tree (various formalisms for specifying mappings) • Generate TL sentence from the TL parse-tree • Semantic Transfer: • Analyze SL input to a language-specific semanticrepresentation (i.e., Case Frames, Logical Form) • Transfer SL semantic representation to TL semantic representation • Generate syntactic structure and then surface sentence in the TL LTI IC 2006

Transfer Approaches Main Advantages and Disadvantages: • Syntactic Transfer: • No need for semantic analysis and generation • Syntactic structures are general, not domain specific  Less domain dependent, can handle open domains • Requires word translation lexicon • Semantic Transfer: • Requires deeper analysis and generation, symbolic representation of concepts and predicates  difficult to construct for open or unlimited domains • Can better handle non-compositional meaning structures  can be more accurate • No word translation lexicon – generate in TL from symbolic concepts LTI IC 2006

Knowledge-based Interlingual MT • The classic “deep” Artificial Intelligence approach: • Analyze the source language into a detailed symbolic representation of its meaning • Generate this meaning in the target language • “Interlingua”: one single meaning representation for all languages • Nice in theory, but extremely difficult in practice: • What kind of representation? • What is the appropriate level of detail to represent? • How to ensure that the interlingua is in fact universal? LTI IC 2006

Interlingua versus Transfer • With interlingua, need only N parsers/ generators instead of N2 transfer systems: L2 L2 L3 L1 L1 L3 interlingua L6 L4 L6 L4 L5 L5 LTI IC 2006

Multi-Engine MT • Apply several MT engines to each input in parallel • Create a combined translation from the individual translations • Goal is to combine strengths, and avoid weaknesses. • Along all dimensions: domain limits, quality, development time/cost, run-time speed, etc. • Various approaches to the problem LTI IC 2006

Speech-to-Speech MT • Speech just makes MT (much) more difficult: • Spoken language is messier • False starts, filled pauses, repetitions, out-of-vocabulary words • Lack of punctuation and explicit sentence boundaries • Current Speech technology is far from perfect • Need for speech recognition and synthesis in foreign languages • Robustness: MT quality degradation should be proportional to SR quality • Tight Integration: rather than separate sequential tasks, can SR + MT be integrated in ways that improves end-to-end performance? LTI IC 2006

Major Sources of Translation Problems • Lexical Differences: • Multiple possible translations for SL word, or difficulties expressing SL word meaning in a single TL word • Structural Differences: • Syntax of SL is different than syntax of the TL: word order, sentence and constituent structure • Differences in Mappings of Syntax to Semantics: • Meaning in TL is conveyed using a different syntactic structure than in the SL • Idioms and Constructions LTI IC 2006

MT at the LTI • LTI originated as the Center for Machine Translation (CMT) in 1985 • MT continues to be a prominent sub-discipline of research with the LTI • More MT faculty than any of the other areas • More MT faculty than anywhere else • Active research on all main approaches to MT: Interlingua, Transfer, EBMT, SMT • Leader in the area of speech-to-speech MT • Multi-Engine MT (MEMT) • MT Evaluation (METEOR, BLANC) LTI IC 2006

KBMT: KANT, KANTOO, CATALYST • Deep knowledge-based framework, with symbolic interlingua as intermediate representation • Syntactic and semantic analysis into a unambiguous detailed symbolic representation of meaning using unification grammars and transformation mappers • Generation into the target language using unification grammars and transformation mappers • First large-scale multi-lingual interlingua-based MT system deployed commercially: • CATALYST at Caterpillar: high quality translation of documentation manuals for heavy equipment • Limited domains and controlled English input • Minor amounts of post-editing • Active follow-on projects • Contact Faculty: Eric Nyberg and Teruko Mitamura LTI IC 2006

EBMT • Developed originally for the PANGLOSS system in the early 1990s • Translation between English and Spanish • Generalized EBMT under development for the past several years • Used in a variety of projects in recent years • DARPA TIDES and GALE programs • DIPLOMAT and TONGUES • Active research work on improving alignment and indexing, decoding from a lattice • Contact Faculty: Ralf Brown and Jaime Carbonell LTI IC 2006

Statistical MT • Word-to-word and phrase-to-phrase translation pairs are acquired automatically from data and assigned probabilities based on a statistical model • Extracted and trained from very large amounts of sentence-aligned parallel text • Word alignment algorithms • Phrase detection algorithms • Translation model probability estimation • Main approach pursued in CMU systems in the DARPA/TIDES program and now in GALE • Chinese-to-English and Arabic-to-English • Most active work is on phrase detection and on advanced decoding techniques • Contact Faculty: Stephan Vogel and Alex Waibel LTI IC 2006

Speech-to-Speech MT • Evolution from JANUS/C-STAR systems to NESPOLE!, LingWear, BABYLON, TC-STAR • Early 1990s: first prototype system that fully performed sp-to-sp (very limited domains) • Interlingua-based, but with shallow task-oriented representations: “we have single and double rooms available” [give-information+availability] (room-type={single, double}) • Semantic Grammars for analysis and generation • Multiple languages: English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, and others • Stat-MT applied in Speech-to-Speech scenarios • Most active work on portable speech translation on small devices: Arabic/English and Thai/English • Contact Faculty: Alan Black, Stephan Vogel, Tanja Schultz and Alex Waibel LTI IC 2006

AVENUE/LETRAS: Learning-based Transfer MT • Develop new approaches for automatically acquiring syntactic MT transfer rules from small amounts of elicited translated and word-aligned data • Specifically designed to bootstrap MT for languages for which only limited amounts of electronic resources are available (particularly indigenous minority languages) • Use machine learning techniques to generalize transfer rules from specific translated examples • Combine with SMT-inspired decoding techniques for producing the best translation of new input from a lattice of translation segments • Languages: Hebrew, Hindi, Mapudungun, Quechua • Most active work on designing a typologically comprehensive elicitation corpus, advanced techniques for automatic rule learning, improved decoding, and rule refinement via user interaction • Contact Faculty: Alon Lavie, Lori Levin, Jaime Carbonell and Bob Frederking LTI IC 2006

Multi-Engine MT • New approach developed over past two years under DoD and DARPA funding (used in GALE) • Main ideas: • Treat original engines as “black boxes” • Align the word and phrase correspondences between the translations • Build a collection of synthetic combinations based on the aligned words and phrases • Score the synthetic combinations based on Language Model and confidence measures • Select the top-scoring synthetic combination • Architecture Issues: integrating “workflows” that produce multiple translations and then combine them with MEMT • IBM’s UIMA architecture • Contact Faculty: Alon Lavie LTI IC 2006

Synthetic Combination MEMT Two Stage Approach: • Align: Identify common words and phrases across the translations provided by the engines • Decode: search the space of synthetic combinations of words/phrases and select the highest scoring combined translation Example: • announced afghan authorities on saturday reconstituted four intergovernmental committees • The Afghan authorities on Saturday the formation of the four committees of government LTI IC 2006

Synthetic Combination MEMT Two Stage Approach: • Align: Identify common words and phrases across the translations provided by the engines • Decode: search the space of synthetic combinations of words/phrases and select the highest scoring combined translation Example: • announced afghan authoritieson saturday reconstituted four intergovernmental committees • The Afghan authoritieson Saturday the formation of the four committees of government MEMT: the afghan authorities announced on Saturday the formation of four intergovernmental committees LTI IC 2006

Automatic MT Evaluation • METEOR: new metric developed at CMU • Improves upon BLEU metric developed by IBM and used extensively in recent years • Main ideas: • Assess the similarity between a machine-produced translation and (several) human reference translations • Similarity is based on word-to-word matching that matches: • Identical words • Morphological variants of same word (stemming) • synonyms • Similarity is based on weighted combination of Precision and Recall • Address fluency/grammaticality via a direct penalty: how well-ordered is the matching of the MT output with the reference? • Improved levels of correlation with human judgments of MT Quality • Contact Faculty: Alon Lavie LTI IC 2006

The METEOR Metric • Example: • Reference: “the Iraqi weaponsare to be handed over to the army within two weeks” • MT output: “in two weeks Iraq’s weapons will give army” • Matching: Ref: Iraqi weapons army two weeks MT: two weeks Iraq’s weapons army • P = 5/8 =0.625 R = 5/14 = 0.357 • Fmean = 10*P*R/(9P+R) = 0.3731 • Fragmentation: 3 frags of 5 words = (3-1)/(5-1) = 0.50 • Discounting factor: DF = 0.5 * (frag**3) = 0.0625 • Final score: Fmean * (1- DF) = 0.3731*0.9375 = 0.3498 LTI IC 2006

Summary • Main challenges for current state-of-the-art MT approaches - Coverage and Accuracy: • Acquiring broad-coverage high-accuracy translation lexicons (for words and phrases) • learning syntactic mappings between languages from parallel word-aligned data • overcoming syntax-to-semantics differences and dealing with constructions • Stronger Target Language Modeling LTI IC 2006

Questions… LTI IC 2006

Example Sys1: feature prominently venezuela ranked fifth in exporting oil field in the world and eighth in production Sys2: Venezuela is occupied by the fifth place to export oil in the world, eighth in production Sys3: Venezuela the top ranked fifth in the oil export in the world and the eighth in the production MEMT Sentence : Selected : venezuela is the top ranked fifth in the oil export in the world to eighth in production. LTI IC 2006

MEMT Example IBM: korea stands ready to allow visits to verify that it does not manufacture nuclear weapons 0.7407 ISI: North Korea Is Prepared to Allow Washington to Verify that It Does Not Make Nuclear Weapons 0.8007 CMU: North Korea prepared to allow Washington to the verification of that is to manufacture nuclear weapons 0.7668 Selected MEMT Sentence : north korea is prepared to allow washington to verify that it does not manufacture nuclear weapons . 0.8894 (-2.75135) LTI IC 2006

Example Sys1: announced afghan authorities on Saturday reconstituted four intergovernmental committees accelerate the process of disarmament removal packing between fighters and pictures of war are still have enjoyed substantial influence Sys2: The Afghan authorities on Saturday the formation of the four committees of government to speed up the process of disarmament demobilization of fighters of the leaders of the war who still have a significant influence. Sys3: the authorities announced Saturday Afghan form four committees government accelerate the process of disarmament and complete disarmament and demobilization followed the leaders of the war who continues to enjoy considerable influence MEMT Sentence : Selected : the afghan authorities on Saturday announced the formation of the four committees of government to speed up the process of disarmament and demobilization of fighters of the leaders of the war who still have a significant influence. LTI IC 2006

MEMT Example IBM: the sri lankan prime minister criticizes head of the country's : 0.8862 ISI: The President of the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Criticized the President of the Country : 0.8660 CMU: Lankan Prime Minister criticizes her country: 0.6615 MEMT Sentence : Selected: the sri lankan prime minister criticizes president of the country . 0.9353 -3.27483 LTI IC 2006

Example Sys1: victims russians are one man and his wife and abusing their eight year old daughter plus a ( 11 and 7 years ) man and his wife and driver , egyptian nationality . : 0.6327 Sys2: The victims were Russian man and his wife, daughter of the most from the age of eight years in addition to the young girls ) 11 7 years ( and a man and his wife and the bus driver Egyptian nationality. : 0.7054 Sys3: the victims Cruz man who wife and daughter both critical of the eight years old addition to two Orient ( 11 ) 7 years ) woman , wife of bus drivers Egyptian nationality . : 0.5293 MEMT Sentence : Selected : the victims were russian man and his wife and daughter of the eight years from the age of a 11 and 7 years in addition to man and his wife and bus drivers egyptian nationality . 0.7647 -3.25376 Oracle : the victims were russian man and wife and his daughter of the eight years old from the age of a 11 and 7 years in addition to the man and his wife and bus drivers egyptian nationality young girls . 0.7964 -3.44128 LTI IC 2006

Lexical Differences • SL word has several different meanings, that translate differently into TL • Ex: financial bank vs. river bank • Lexical Gaps: SL word reflects a unique meaning that cannot be expressed by a single word in TL • Ex: English snubdoesn’t have a corresponding verb in French or German • TL has finer distinctions than SL  SL word should be translated differently in different contexts • Ex: English wall can be German wand(internal), mauer (external) LTI IC 2006

Lexical Differences • Lexical gaps: • Examples: these have no direct equivalent in English:gratiner(v., French, “to cook with a cheese coating”)ōtosanrin(n., Japanese, “three-wheeled truck or van”) LTI IC 2006

Lexical Differences [From Hutchins & Somers] LTI IC 2006

MT Handling of Lexical Differences • Direct MT and Syntactic Transfer: • Lexical Transfer stage uses bilingual lexicon • SL word can have multiple translation entries, possibly augmented with disambiguation features or probabilities • Lexical Transfer can involve use of limited context (on SL side, TL side, or both) • Lexical Gaps can partly be addressed via phrasal lexicons • Semantic Transfer: • Ambiguity of SL word must be resolved during analysis  correct symbolic representation at semantic level • TL Generation must select appropriate word or structure for correctly conveying the concept in TL LTI IC 2006

Structural Differences • Syntax of SL is different than syntax of the TL: • Word order within constituents: • English NPs: art adj n the big boy • Hebrew NPs: art n art adj ha yeled ha gadol • Constituent structure: • English is SVO: Subj Verb Obj I saw the man • Modern Arabic is VSO: Verb Subj Obj • Different verb syntax: • Verb complexes in English vs. in German I can eat the apple Ich kann den apfel essen • Case marking and free constituent order • German and other languages that mark case: den apfel esse Ich the(acc) apple eat I(nom) LTI IC 2006

MT Handling of Structural Differences • Direct MT Approaches: • No explicit treatment: Phrasal Lexicons and sentence level matches or templates • Syntactic Transfer: • Structural Transfer Grammars • Trigger rule by matching against syntactic structure on SL side • Rule specifies how to reorder and re-structure the syntactic constituents to reflect syntax of TL side • Semantic Transfer: • SL Semantic Representation abstracts away from SL syntax to functional roles  done during analysis • TL Generation maps semantic structures to correct TL syntax LTI IC 2006

Syntax-to-Semantics Differences • Meaning in TL is conveyed using a different syntactic structure than in the SL • Changes in verb and its arguments • Passive constructions • Motion verbs and state verbs • Case creation and case absorption • Main Distinction from Structural Differences: • Structural differences are mostly independent of lexical choices and their semantic meaning  addressed by transfer rules that are syntactic in nature • Syntax-to-semantic mapping differences are meaning-specific: require the presence of specific words (and meanings) in the SL LTI IC 2006

Syntax-to-Semantics Differences • Structure-change example: I like swimming “Ich scwhimme gern” I swim gladly LTI IC 2006

Syntax-to-Semantics Differences • Verb-argument example: Jones likes the film. “Le film plait à Jones.” (lit: “the film pleases to Jones”) • Use of case roles can eliminate the need for this type of transfer • Jones = Experiencer • film = Theme LTI IC 2006

Syntax-to-Semantics Differences • Passive Constructions • Example: French reflexive passives:Ces livres se lisent facilement*”These books read themselves easily”These books are easily read LTI IC 2006

Same intention, different syntax • rigly bitiwgacny my leg hurts • candy wagac fE rigly I have pain in my leg • rigly bitiClimny my leg hurts • fE wagac fE rigly there is pain in my leg • rigly bitinqaH calya my leg bothers on me Romanization of Arabic from CallHome Egypt. LTI IC 2006

MT Handling of Syntax-to-Semantics Differences • Direct MT Approaches: • No Explicit treatment: Phrasal Lexicons and sentence level matches or templates • Syntactic Transfer: • “Lexicalized” Structural Transfer Grammars • Trigger rule by matching against “lexicalized” syntactic structure on SL side: lexical and functional features • Rule specifies how to reorder and re-structure the syntactic constituents to reflect syntax of TL side • Semantic Transfer: • SL Semantic Representation abstracts away from SL syntax to functional roles  done during analysis • TL Generation maps semantic structures to correct TL syntax LTI IC 2006

Machine Translation Overview