On the Language Coverage Bias for Neural Machine Translation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language coverage bias, which indicates the content-dependent differences between sentence pairs originating from the source and target languages, is important for neural machine translation (NMT) because the target-original training data is not well exploited in current practice. By carefully designing experiments, we provide comprehensive analyses of the language coverage bias in the training data, and find that using only the source-original data achieves comparable performance with using full training data. Based on these observations, we further propose two simple and effective approaches to alleviate the language coverage bias problem through explicitly distinguishing between the source- and target-original training data, which consistently improve the performance over strong baselines on six WMT20 translation tasks. Complementary to the translationese effect, language coverage bias provides another explanation for the performance drop caused by back-translation. We also apply our approach to both back- and forward-translation and find that mitigating the language coverage bias can improve the performance of both the two representative data augmentation methods and their tagged variants.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2021.
Builds on
21 of 41 references.
References · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
- 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 788
- 2019Massively Multilingual Neural Machine Translationcited by 246
- 2019Pay Less Attention with Lightweight and Dynamic Convolutionscited by 211
- 2018Scaling Neural Machine Translationcited by 204
- 2019Facebook FAIR's WMT19 News Translation Task Submissioncited by 179
- 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 110
- 2019Tagged Back-Translationcited by 77
- 2018A Survey of Domain Adaptation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 64
9 more
- 2019The Effect of Translationese in Machine Translation Test Setscited by 49
- 2019compare-mt: A Tool for Holistic Comparison of Language Generation Systemscited by 43
- 2019On The Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems Trained With Back-Translationcited by 40
- 2019Translationese as a Language in "Multilingual" NMTcited by 36
- 2019Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationesecited by 29
- 2019Domain, Translationese and Noise in Synthetic Data for Neural Machine Translationcited by 26
- 2020On Long-Tailed Phenomena in Neural Machine Translationcited by 20
- 2018Back-Translation Sampling by Targeting Difficult Words in Neural Machine Translationcited by 19
- 2019The Source-Target Domain Mismatch Problem in Machine Translationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 6; 2023: 3; 2024: 1.
12 papers.
- 2021Language Models are Good Translatorscited by 16
- 2021On the Complementarity between Pre-Training and Back-Translation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 14
- 2022Understanding and Improving Sequence-to-Sequence Pretraining for Neural Machine Translationcited by 14
- 2022Understanding Translationese in Cross-Lingual Summarizationcited by 14
- 2022Understanding and Mitigating the Uncertainty in Zero-Shot Translationcited by 9
- 2022ngram-OAXE: Phrase-Based Order-Agnostic Cross Entropy for Non-Autoregressive Machine Translationcited by 8
- 2022Bridging the Data Gap between Training and Inference for Unsupervised Neural Machine Translationcited by 5
- 2023Translating away Translationese without Parallel Datacited by 5
- 2022Original or Translated? On the Use of Parallel Data for Translation Quality Estimationcited by 2
- 2023Unlikelihood Tuning on Negative Samples Amazingly Improves Zero-Shot Translationcited by 2
- 2024Translation Deserves Better: Analyzing Translation Artifacts in Cross-lingual Visual Question Answeringcited by 2
- 2023Pluggable Neural Machine Translation Models via Memory-augmented Adapterscited by 1
- 2024Translation Deserves Better: Analyzing Translation Artifacts in Cross-lingual Visual Question Answering4 Jun 2024
- 2023Translating away Translationese without Parallel Data28 Oct 2023
- 2023Unlikelihood Tuning on Negative Samples Amazingly Improves Zero-Shot Translation28 Sep 2023
- 2023Pluggable Neural Machine Translation Models via Memory-augmented Adapters12 Jul 2023
- 2022Original or Translated? On the Use of Parallel Data for Translation Quality Estimation20 Dec 2022
- 2022Understanding Translationese in Cross-Lingual Summarization14 Dec 2022
- 2022ngram-OAXE: Phrase-Based Order-Agnostic Cross Entropy for Non-Autoregressive Machine Translation8 Oct 2022
- 2022Understanding and Mitigating the Uncertainty in Zero-Shot Translation20 May 2022
- 2022Understanding and Improving Sequence-to-Sequence Pretraining for Neural Machine Translation16 Mar 2022
- 2022Bridging the Data Gap between Training and Inference for Unsupervised Neural Machine Translation16 Mar 2022
- 2021On the Complementarity between Pre-Training and Back-Translation for Neural Machine Translation5 Oct 2021
- 2021Language Models are Good Translators25 Jun 2021