User:Aboelhamd/progress

GSOC 2019 progress : Extend weighted transfer rules

The code is uploaded regularly in this repo [1].

My working days will be everyday except for Thursday, 5 hours per day, at least for the first phase only.

Phase 1 (April 19 : May 16)

From April 19 to May 16 and from June 21 to June 28.
It's shifted because of my exams.

Week 1 (April 19 : April 25)

Day 1 (Friday April 19)
Latest evaluation scores were lower than traditional apertium's LRLM resolution, by far, unfortunately.
Debugged the code to see what's the cause of such low evaluation score.
Figured out that there was a bug in normalizing the LM scores of the target ambiguous sentences. The LM score is a log base 10 the probability of the sentence, and as the magnitude gets higher, the sentence normalizing probability should get lower, and I was doing the inverse of that.
The easiest solution was to modify the score-sentences script, and instead of getting the score, will get its reciprocal.

Day 2 (Saturday April 20)
The evaluation results were better, but still not better than traditional apertium's LRLM resolution.
Debugged the code to see why the score still worse than apertium's.
Found a bug in generating the ambiguous combinations and still working on solving it.

The bug resulted some incomplete sentences like:
Sentence : Reciprocal of negative LM score
Resumption of the period of sessions : 0.0552026445652
Resumption of session period : 0.0739337147853
Resumption of the session period : 0.0753641871191
Resumption of the period of : 0.0757469108192
Resumption of period of : 0.0684245152522
Resumption of the period : 0.0809504851312

And as shown, the best score went to incomplete sentence, which is one of the reasons why we got bad evaluation score.

Day 3 (Sunday April 21)
The bug of some incomplete sentences was a problem of pointers. Before that, I was depending on pointers and the program was working good but a memory leaks problem emerged when I had done some changes, so instead of solving the leaks problems I turned to use stack instead of the heap, and with not enough testing after that, we got this bug.
Now, I will remove that stack solution again and turn to pointers and try to solve the leaks problem, so the program will work as well as previous version.
The bug was solved, and started training spa-eng pair again.

Day 4 (Monday April 22)
Continue spa-eng training.
Read the paper Neural Machine Translation with Extended Context. [2]

Day 5 (Tuesday April 23)
Continue spa-eng training.
Debugged kir-tur pair for possible bug, as the chunker output has only default and unknown chunks. But still needs more debugging

Day 6 (Wednesday April 24)
Training is finished.
Modifying some of the code regarding evaluation, to update them with the last bug fixed.
Evaluation is finished, and the result scores still lower than apertium's.

Using 100% of training data, 6-gram LM, max entropy models, sampling ambiguous combinations

	Apertium LRLM	Apertium ambiguous
WER (Word Error Rate)	78.41	76.93
PER (Position-independent word Error Rate)	61.86	57.62
BLEU (Bi-Lingual Evaluation Understudy)	14.13	13.72

Day 7 (Thursday April 25)
Working on training with 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% of the data, to evaluate the results with respect the data size.

Week 2 (April 26 : May 2)

Evaluating with 1000 sentences. The source and all target files are uploaded here[3] .

Best score of our system :

---

Number of words in reference: 24701 Number of words in test: 25406 Number of unknown words (marked with a star) in test: 1200 Percentage of unknown words: 4.72 %

Results when removing unknown-word marks (stars)

---

Edit distance: 18675 Word error rate (WER): 75.60 % Number of position-independent correct words: 11058 Position-independent word error rate (PER): 58.09 %

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Average score of our system :

---

Number of words in reference: 579172 Number of words in test: 622563 Number of unknown words (marked with a star) in test: 26178 Percentage of unknown words: 4.20 %

Results when removing unknown-word marks (stars)

---

Edit distance: 453716 Word error rate (WER): 78.34 % Number of position-independent correct words: 269929 Position-independent word error rate (PER): 60.89 %

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Statistics about input files

---

Number of words in reference: 24701 Number of words in test: 26486 Number of unknown words (marked with a star) in test: 1200 Percentage of unknown words: 4.53 %

Results when removing unknown-word marks (stars)

---

Edit distance: 19369 Word error rate (WER): 78.41 % Number of position-independent correct words: 11206 Position-independent word error rate (PER): 61.86 %

Day 1 (Friday April 26)

Day 2 (Saturday April 27)

Day 3 (Sunday April 28)

Day 4 (Monday April 29)

Day 5 (Tuesday April 30)

Day 6 (Wednesday May 1)

Day 7 (Thursday May 2)

Week 5 (June 21 : June 27)

After my exams.

---

---