Difference between revisions of "Vogal et al, COLING 1996"
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<math>Pr(t,a|s) = \frac{\epsilon}{(J+1)^{I}}\prod_{j=1}^{J}{tr(t_j|s_{a(j)})}</math> | <math>Pr(t,a|s) = \frac{\epsilon}{(J+1)^{I}}\prod_{j=1}^{J}{tr(t_j|s_{a(j)})}</math> | ||
− | Where the alignment <math>a_1^J</math> is a function that maps each word | + | Where the alignment <math>a_1^J</math> is a function that maps each word <math>t_j</math> to a word <math>s_i</math>, by their indexes. These alignments can be viewed as an object for indicating the corresponding words in a parallel text. We can see that the sentence translation probability $Pr(t,s)$, is decomposed into the product of the lexical translation probabilities <math>tr(t_j|s_{a(j)})</math> of each word in the target <math>t_1,...,t_{J}</math> with the word that it is aligned to in the source <math>s_{a(j)}</math>. Additionally, target words that are not aligned with any source word are aligned with the null token, with the a lexical translation probability given by <math>tr(t_j|null)</math>. These are referred as null insertions. The normalizing factor <math>\frac{\epsilon}{(I+1)^{J}}</math> ensures that <math>Pr(t,a|s)</math> is a probability and is normalized over all possible alignments <math>a</math> and all possible translations <math>t</math>. |
== Algorithm == | == Algorithm == | ||
While IBM Model 2 attempts to model the absolute distortion of words in sentence pairs <math>Pr_a(i|j,J,I)</math>, alignments have a strong tendency to maintain the local neighborhood after translation. | While IBM Model 2 attempts to model the absolute distortion of words in sentence pairs <math>Pr_a(i|j,J,I)</math>, alignments have a strong tendency to maintain the local neighborhood after translation. |
Revision as of 12:50, 23 September 2011
Citation
Vogel, S., Ney, H., & Tillmann, C. (1996). Hmm-based word alignment in statistical translation. In Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 2, COLING ’96, pp. 836–841, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Online version
Summary
Word Alignments map the word correspondence between two parallel sentences in different languages.
This work extends IBM models 1 and 2, which models lexical translation probabilities and absolute distortion probabilities, by also modeling relative distortion.
The relative distortion is modeled by applying a first-order HMM, where each alignment probabilities are dependent on the distortion of the previous alignment.
Previous work
IBM Model 1 defines the probability of a sentence , with length , being translated to a sentence , with length , with the alignment as:
Where the alignment is a function that maps each word to a word , by their indexes. These alignments can be viewed as an object for indicating the corresponding words in a parallel text. We can see that the sentence translation probability $Pr(t,s)$, is decomposed into the product of the lexical translation probabilities of each word in the target with the word that it is aligned to in the source . Additionally, target words that are not aligned with any source word are aligned with the null token, with the a lexical translation probability given by . These are referred as null insertions. The normalizing factor ensures that is a probability and is normalized over all possible alignments and all possible translations .
Algorithm
While IBM Model 2 attempts to model the absolute distortion of words in sentence pairs , alignments have a strong tendency to maintain the local neighborhood after translation.