Abstract:The past several years have witnessed rapid advances in syntax-based machine translation, which exploits natural language syntax to guide translation. Depending on the type of input, most of these efforts can be divided into two broad categories: (a) string-based systems whose input is a string, which is simultaneously parsed and translated by a synchronous grammar (Wu, 1997; Chiang, 2005; Galley et al., 2006), and (b) tree-based systems whose input is already a parse tree to be directly converted into a target tree or string (Lin, 2004; Ding and Palmer, 2005; Quirk et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2006). Compared with their string-based counterparts, tree-based systems offer many attractive features: they are much faster in decoding (linear time vs. cubic time), do not require sophisticated binarization (Zhang et al., 2006), and can use separate grammars for parsing and translation (e.g. a context-free grammar for the former and a tree substitution grammar for the latter). However, despite these advantages, most treebased systems suffer from a major drawback: they only use 1-best parse trees to direct translation, which potentially introduces translation mistakes due to parsing errors (Quirk and Corston-Oliver, 2006). This situation becomes worse for resourcepoor source languages without enough Treebank data to train a high-accuracy parser. This problem can be alleviated elegantly by using packed forests (Huang, 2008), which encodes exponentially many parse trees in a polynomial space. Forest-based systems (Mi et al., 2008; Mi and Huang, 2008) thus take a packed forest instead of a parse tree as an input. In addition, packed forests could also be used for translation rule extraction, which helps alleviate the propagation of parsing errors into rule set. Forest-based translation can be regarded as a compromise between the string-based and tree-based methods, while combining the advantages of both: decoding is still fast, yet does not commit to a single parse. Surprisingly, translating a forest of millions of trees is even faster than translating 30 individual trees, and offers significantly better translation quality. This approach has since become a popular topic.

Joint Parsing and Translation

Joint Decoding with Multiple Translation Models.

Joint syntactic and semantic parsing of Chinese

Joint tokenization, parsing, and translation

Joint Decoding of Tree Transduction Models for Sentence Compression

Tree-Based and Forest-Based Translation

Joint Models for Chinese POS Tagging and Dependency Parsing.

A Tree-to-String EBMT Method by Integrating Joint Model of Chinese Segmentation and Dependency Parsing

Joint Tokenization and Translation

Joint Optimization for Chinese POS Tagging and Dependency Parsing

High-order Joint Constituency and Dependency Parsing

Bilingually Induced Clause Parser for Tree-based Translation

A Joint Model for Graph-Based Chinese Dependency Parsing.

Bilingually-constrained (monolingual) Shift-Reduce Parsing

A Tree Sequence Alignment-based Tree-to-Tree Translation Model.

Improving Tree-to-Tree Translation with Packed Forests.

Jointly or Separately: Which is Better for Parsing Heterogeneous Dependencies?

Tree-based Translation without using Parse Trees

Direct decoding algorithm for syntax-based tree-to-string statistical translation model

Left-to-Right Tree-to-String Decoding with Prediction

Statistical Translation Model Based On Source Syntax Structure