Modeling Target-Side Morphology in Neural Machine Translation: A Comparison of Strategies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Morphologically rich languages pose difficulties to machine translation. Machine translation engines that rely on statistical learning from parallel training data, such as state-of-the-art neural systems, face challenges especially with rich morphology on the output language side. Key challenges of rich target-side morphology in data-driven machine translation include: (1) A large amount of differently inflected word surface forms entails a larger vocabulary and thus data sparsity. (2) Some inflected forms of infrequent terms typically do not appear in the training corpus, which makes closed-vocabulary systems unable to generate these unobserved variants. (3) Linguistic agreement requires the system to correctly match the grammatical categories between inflected word forms in the output sentence, both in terms of target-side morpho-syntactic wellformedness and semantic adequacy with respect to the input. In this paper, we re-investigate two target-side linguistic processing techniques: a lemma-tag strategy and a linguistically informed word segmentation strategy. Our experiments are conducted on a English-German translation task under three training corpus conditions of different magnitudes. We find that a stronger Transformer baseline leaves less room for improvement than a shallow-RNN encoder-decoder model when translating in-domain. However, we find that linguistic modeling of target-side morphology does benefit the Transformer model when the same system is applied to out-of-domain input text. We also successfully apply our approach to English to Czech translation.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2022.
Builds on
19 of 55 references.
References · 19
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
- 2017Graph Convolutional Encoders for Syntax-aware Neural Machine Translationcited by 70
- 2016How Grammatical is Character-level Neural Machine Translation? Assessing MT Quality with Contrastive Translation Pairscited by 39
- 2016Tree-to-Sequence Attentional Neural Machine Translationcited by 28
- 2017Linguistically Motivated Vocabulary Reduction for Neural Machine Translation from Turkish to Englishcited by 23
- 2016Neural versus Phrase-Based Machine Translation Quality: a Case Studycited by 19
- 2017Towards String-to-Tree Neural Machine Translationcited by 19
- 2017Nematus: a Toolkit for Neural Machine Translationcited by 16
7 more
- 2017Predicting Target Language CCG Supertags Improves Neural Machine Translationcited by 15
- 2017Sockeye: A Toolkit for Neural Machine Translationcited by 15
- 2018Compositional Representation of Morphologically-Rich Input for Neural Machine Translationcited by 12
- 2017Modeling Target-Side Inflection in Neural Machine Translationcited by 9
- 2021How Suitable Are Subword Segmentation Strategies for Translating Non-Concatenative Morphology?cited by 7
- 2018Improving Character-based Decoding Using Target-Side Morphological Information for Neural Machine Translationcited by 4
- 2017Neural Machine Translation by Generating Multiple Linguistic Factorscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.