TY - GEN
T1 - NMT or SMT
T2 - 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, IJCNLP 2017
AU - Skadiņa, Inguna
AU - Pinnis, Mārcis
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©2017 AFNLP.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - The recent technological shift in machine translation from statistical machine translation (SMT) to neural machine translation (NMT) raises the question of the strengths and weaknesses of NMT. In this paper, we present an analysis of NMT and SMT systems’ outputs from narrow domain English-Latvian MT systems that were trained on a rather small amount of data. We analyze post-edits produced by professional translators and manually annotated errors in these outputs. Analysis of post-edits allowed us to conclude that both approaches are comparably successful, allowing for an increase in translators’ productivity, with the NMT system showing slightly worse results. Through the analysis of annotated errors, we found that NMT translations are more fluent than SMT translations. However, errors related to accuracy, especially, mistranslation and omission errors, occur more often in NMT outputs. The word form errors, that characterize the morphological richness of Latvian, are frequent for both systems, but slightly fewer in NMT outputs.
AB - The recent technological shift in machine translation from statistical machine translation (SMT) to neural machine translation (NMT) raises the question of the strengths and weaknesses of NMT. In this paper, we present an analysis of NMT and SMT systems’ outputs from narrow domain English-Latvian MT systems that were trained on a rather small amount of data. We analyze post-edits produced by professional translators and manually annotated errors in these outputs. Analysis of post-edits allowed us to conclude that both approaches are comparably successful, allowing for an increase in translators’ productivity, with the NMT system showing slightly worse results. Through the analysis of annotated errors, we found that NMT translations are more fluent than SMT translations. However, errors related to accuracy, especially, mistranslation and omission errors, occur more often in NMT outputs. The word form errors, that characterize the morphological richness of Latvian, are frequent for both systems, but slightly fewer in NMT outputs.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105019640133
M3 - Conference paper
AN - SCOPUS:105019640133
T3 - 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing - Proceedings of the IJCNLP 2017, System Demonstrations
SP - 373
EP - 383
BT - 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing - Proceedings of the IJCNLP 2017
PB - Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)
Y2 - 27 November 2017 through 1 December 2017
ER -