Good applications for crummy machine translation

Ideally, we might hope to improve the performance of our MT systems by improving the system, but it might be even more important to improve performance by looking for a more appropriate application. A survey of the literature on evaluation of MT systems seems to suggest that the success of the evaluation often depends very strongly on the selection of an appropriate application. If the application is well-chosen, then it often becomes fairly clear how the system should be evaluated. Moreover, the evaluation is likely to make the system look good. Conversely, if the application is not clearly identified (or worse, if the application is poorly chosen), then it is often very difficult to find a satisfying evaluation paradigm. We begin our discussion with a brief review of some evaluation metrics that have been tried in the past and conclude that it is difficult to identify a satisfying evaluation paradigm that will make sense over all possible applications. It is probably wise to identify the application first, and then we will be in a much better position to address evaluation questions. The discussion will then turn to the main point, an essay on how to pick a good niche application for state-of-the-art (crummy) machine translation.

[1]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Review of the ARPA speech understanding project , 1990 .

[2]  D. W. Barron Machine Translation , 1968, Nature.

[3]  Robert L. Mercer,et al.  An Estimate of an Upper Bound for the Entropy of English , 1992, CL.

[4]  M. Nagao,et al.  Machine translation from japanese into english , 1986, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[5]  U. Magnusson-murray Operational Experience of a Machine Translation Service , 1985 .

[6]  Margaret King,et al.  EUROTRA: A Multilingual System under Development , 1985, Comput. Linguistics.

[7]  John Cocke,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation , 1990, CL.

[8]  John Lehrberger,et al.  Machine Translation: Linguistic characteristics of MT systems and general methodology of evaluation , 1988 .

[9]  Klaus E. Tschira Looking back at a year of German-English MT with Logos , 1983, TC.

[10]  John R. Pierce,et al.  Language and Machines: Computers in Translation and Linguistics , 1966 .

[11]  Pierre Isabelle,et al.  TAUM-AVIATION: Its Technical Features and Some Experimental Results , 1985, Comput. Linguistics.

[12]  Allen Newell,et al.  Speech understanding systems : Final report of a study group , 1973 .

[13]  HARDSCAPE proaucis,et al.  Tools of the trade , 1995, Nature.

[14]  R. P. W. Lawson Users of Machine Translation System Report Increased Output , 1984 .

[15]  Margaret King,et al.  Using Test Suites in Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems , 1990, COLING.

[16]  Sergei Nirenburg,et al.  The Proper Place of Men and Machines in Language Translation , 2003 .

[17]  Bożena Henisz-Dostert,et al.  PART III: Users' evaluation of machine translation , 1979 .

[18]  Bruce Lowerre,et al.  The Harpy speech understanding system , 1990 .

[19]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  Prediction and Entropy of Printed English , 1951 .