Lexical feature transfer - First report
Tools used:
Manually written parser for the output of apertium-tagger. (java, c++).
Manually written pattern extractor (c++).
Manually written aligner for <n> <pr> <n> patterns (java, c++ version has some bugs).
Manually written nominal to numerical feature converter, needed for SVM training (java)
Rapidminer
liblinear / libsvm
A typical pipeline for extracting patterns would look like this:
cat file | apertium-destxt | lt-proc xx-yy.automorph.bin | apertium-tagger -g xx-yy.prob | apertium-destxt | some-feature-extractor.
Patterns in the form of <n1> <pr> <the>? <n2> were extracted in the following way:
for every sentence s in the source language corpus:
for every pattern in the form of <n1> <pr> <the>? <n2> in s
extract the lemma and the second tag (grammatical number) of the two nouns
extract the lemma of the preposition
extract the lemma and the first tag of the first word different from "the" before <n1>
extract the lemma and the first tag of the first word different from "the" after <n2>
extract the label (the / none)
end for
end for
ES-EN
Analysed pattern: <n> <pr> <the>? <n> -> <n> <pr> <the>? <n>
Training corpus size: 1.000.000 lines chosen from the front of the EUROPARL-es-en.en corpus, 613786 training examples. Testing corpus size: 50.000 lines, 51.472 examples.
A linear SVM was trained. Cross validation on the training set showed an accuracy of 91%.
The PER dropped from 83.39, 82.97%, and the WER from 118.97% to 119.25%. However, the original testing corpus has 49.929 non-blank lines, while the translated one has 49.919, 10 lines less, and this is the reason why the errors are so high. Re-evaluation will be done as soon as the two corpora are manually realigned.
This method takes into account only the original (manually written) target side corpus (english in this case). Another possibility is to try to align patterns from the manually written and translated target side corpora. This way, the features will be extracted from the translated corpora, and the label will be extracted from the manually written corpora. This method might provide better results since the model will be trained on the output from apertium.
Patterns in the form of <n> <pr> <n> were aligned in the following way:
for every sentence in the source language corpus:
for every pattern in the sentence
extract the pattern
translate the nouns to the target language
look for a <n1-translated> <pr> <n2-translated> pattern in the target language sentence
make an example <n1-translated> <pr-source language> <n2-translated> <label>,
where label is the preposition from the target language
end for
end for
After pattern extraction is done, the patterns containing only certain preposition can be simply grepped.
ES-EN
Analysed pattern: <n1> <pr> <n2> -> <n1> <pr> <n2> | <n2> <n1>
Training corpus size: 1.000.000 lines chosen from the front of the EUROPARL-es-en corpus, 151.000 aligned examples.
Prepositions that appear in the <n1> <pr> <n2> pattern, sorted by frequency:
136650 ^de<pr>$ 5160 ^a<pr>$ 2963 ^en<pr>$ 1614 ^por<pr>$ 1495 ^sobre<pr>$ 1290 ^entre<pr>$ ...
Only those cases where ^de<pr>$ appears in the source language (es) were considered, since the other prepositions represent a significantly smaller fraction.
The token ^de<pr>$ in a <n1> <pr> <n2> pattern translates to:
68134 times ^_$ (<n2> <n1>) 57424 times ^of<pr>$ 4945 times ^for<pr>$ 2864 times ^in<pr>$ 798 times ^from<pr>$ 739 times ^to<pr>$
Three classes were constructed: class '^_$', class '^of<pr>$' and class 'other'. Class ^_$ denotes that the pronoun will be omitted and the nouns will swap places. Example: Trial for murder -> Murder trial. Class ^of<pr>$ denotes the preposition that will be inserted between the two nouns. The class other means that the output from apertium will be taken.
Three features were chosen for classification, the two nouns and the the source language preposition. A linear SVM was trained, and 91% accuracy was achieved using 5-fold cross validation. The model was aditionally tested on 5256 examples, taken from the back of the EUROPARL-es-en corpus and 90% accuracy was achieved.
The WER/PER have not calculated yet. However, apertium translates almost every de<pr> token to of<pr>, so there is room for progress.
MK-EN analysed pattern: <n1> <pr> <n2> -> <n1> <pr> <n2>
Training corpus size: 100.000 lines chosen from the front of the SETIMES-mk-en corpus, 12.016 aligned examples.
The most common repositions that appear in the <n1> <pr> <n2> pattern, sorted by frequency:
5003 ^на<pr>$ 3084 ^за<pr>$ 2452 ^во<pr>$ 928 ^од<pr>$ 429 ^со<pr>$ 120 ^до<pr>$ ...
Only these six prepositions from the source language were considered.
The most common prepositions that appeear in the <n1> <pr> <n2> pattern in the target language (en), sorted by frequency:
5244 ^of<pr>$ 2530 ^in<pr>$ 1925 ^for<pr>$ 780 ^to<pr>$ 407 ^with<pr>$ 373 ^on<pr>$ 251 ^from<pr>$ ...
Eight classes were constructed, each for every english preposition from the list above, plus an additional 'other' class for all other prepositions not in the list. Three features were chosen for classification, the two nouns and the the source language preposition. A linear SVM was trained, and 84.5% accuracy was achieved using 5-fold cross validation.
The WER dropped from 7.9% to 5.2% after the model was applied on unseen data.
