1 Introduction
Discriminative training methods for structured prediction in natural language processing (NLP) aim to estimate the parameters of a model that assigns a score to each hypothesis in the (possibly very large) search space. For example, in statistical machine translation (SMT), the model assigns a score to each possible translation, and in syntactic parsing, the function assigns a score to each possible syntactic tree. Ideally, the model should assign scores that rank hypotheses according to their true quality. In this paper, we consider the problem of discriminative training for SMT.
Traditional SMT systems use loglinear models with only about a dozen features, such as translation probabilities and language model probabilities
Yamada and Knight (2001); Koehn et al. (2003); Chiang (2005); Liu et al. (2006). These models can be tuned by minimum error rate training (MERT) Och (2003), which directly optimizes BLEU using coordinate ascent combined with a global line search.To enable training of modern SMT systems, which can have thousands of features or more, many research efforts have been made towards scalable discriminative training methods Chiang et al. (2008); Hopkins and May (2011); Bazrafshan et al. (2012). Most of these methods either define loss functions that push the model to correctly compare pairs of hypotheses, or use approximate optimization methods that effectively do the same. For practical reasons, only a subset of the pairs are considered; these pairs are selected by either sampling Hopkins and May (2011)
or heuristic methods
Watanabe et al. (2007); Chiang et al. (2008).But this pairwise approach neglects the global ordering of the list of hypotheses, which may lead to problems trying to learn good parameter values. Inspired by research in information retrieval (IR) Cao et al. (2007); Xia et al. (2008), we propose to directly model the ordering of the whole translation list, instead of decomposing it into translation pairs.
Previous research has tried to integrate listwise methods into SMT, but almost all of them focus on the reranking task, which aims to rescore the fixed translation lists generated by a baseline system. They try to either use listwise approaches to training the reranking model Li et al. (2013); Niehues et al. (2015) or replace the pointwise ranking function, i.e. the loglinear model, with a listwise ranking function by introducing listwise features Zhang et al. (2016). In this paper, we focus on listwise approaches that can learn better discriminative models for SMT. We present a listwise learning framework for tuning translation systems that uses two listwise ranking objectives originally developed for IR, ListNet Cao et al. (2007) and ListMLE Xia et al. (2008)
. But unlike standard IR problems, structured prediction problems usually have a huge search space, and at each training iteration, the list of search results can vary. The usual strategy is to form the union of all lists of search results, but this can lead to a “patchy” list that doesn’t represent the full search space well. The listwise approaches always based on the permutation probability distribution over the list. Modeling the distribution over a “patchy” list, whose elements were generated by different parameters will affect listwise approaches’ performance. To address this issue, we design an
instanceaggregating method: Instead of treating the data as a fixedsize set of lists that each grow over time as new translations are added at each iteration, we treat the data as a growing set of lists; each time a sentence is translated, the best list of translations is added as a new list.We also extend standard listwise training by considering the importance of different instances in the list. Based on the intuition that instances at the top may be more important for ranking, we propose toprank enhanced loss functions, which incorporate a positiondependent cost that penalizes errors occurring at the top of the list more strongly.
We conduct largescale ChinesetoEnglish translation experiments showing that our toprank enhanced listwise learning methods significantly outperform other tuning methods with high dimensional feature sets. Additionally, even with a small basic feature set, our methods still obtain better results than MERT.
2 Background
2.1 Loglinear models
In this paper, we assume a loglinear model, which defines a scoring function on target translation hypotheses , given a source sentence :
(1)  
(2) 
where
is the feature vector and
is the feature weight vector.The process of training a SMT system includes both learning the submodels, which are included in the feature vector , and learning the weight vector .
Then the decoding of SMT systems can be formulated as a search for the translation with the highest model score:
(3) 
where is the set of all reachable hypotheses.
2.2 SMT Features
In this paper, we use a hierarchical phrase based translation system Chiang (2005). For convenient comparison, we divide features of SMT into the following three sets.
Basic Features: The basic features are those commonly used in hierarchical phrase based translation systems, including a language model, four translation model features, word, phrase and rule penalties, and penalties for unknown words, the glue rule and null translations.
Extended Features: Inspired by Chen2013, we manually group the parallel training data into 15 sets, according to their genre and origin. The translation models trained on each set are used as separate features. We also add an indicator feature for each individual training set to mark where the translation rule comes from. The extended features provide additional 60 translation model features and 16 indicator features, which is too many to be tuned with MERT.
Sparse Features: We use wordphrase pair features as our sparse features, which reflect the wordphrase correspondence in a hierarchical phrase Watanabe et al. (2007). Figure 1 illustrates an example of wordphrase pair features for a phrase translation pair and . Wordphrase pair features , , , will be fired for the translation rule with the given word alignment. In practice, these feature only fire when all the source and target words in the feature are both in the top 100 most frequent words.
2.3 Tuning via Pairwise Ranking
The beam search strategy for SMT decoding process makes it convenient to get a best translation list for each source sentence. Given a set of source sentences and their corresponding translation lists, the tuning problem could be regarded as a ranking task. Many recently proposed SMT tuning methods are based on the pairwise ranking framework Chiang et al. (2008); Hopkins and May (2011); Bazrafshan et al. (2012).
Pairwise ranking optimization (PRO) Hopkins and May (2011) is a commonly used tuning method. The idea of PRO is to sample pairs from the
best list, and train a linear binary classifier to predict whether
or , where is an extrinsic metric like BLEU. In this paper, we use sentencelevel BLEU with addone smoothing Lin and Och (2004).The method gets a comparable BLEU score to MERT and MIRA Chiang et al. (2008), and scales well on large feature sets. Other pairwise ranking methods employ similar procedures.
3 Listwise Learning Framework
Although ranking methods have shown their effectiveness in tuning for SMT systems Hopkins and May (2011); Watanabe (2012); Dreyer and Dong (2015), most proposed ranking approaches view tuning as pairwise ranking. These approaches decompose the ranking of the hypothesis list into pairs, which might limit the training method’s ability to learn better parameters. To preserve the ranking information, we first formulate training as an instance of the listwise ranking problem. Then we propose a learning method based on the iterative learning framework of SMT tuning and further investigate the toprank enhanced losses.
3.1 Training Objectives
3.1.1 The Permutation Probability Model
In order to directly model the translation list, we first introduce a probabilistic model proposed by Guiver2009. A ranking of a list of translations can be thought of as a function from to translations, where each is the th translation candidate in the ranking. A scoring function (which could be either the model score, , or the BLEU score, eval) induces a probability distribution over rankings:
(4) 
3.1.2 Loss Functions
Based on the probabilistic model above, the loss function can be defined as the difference between the distribution over the ranking according to and . Thus, we introduce the following two standard listwise losses.
ListNet: The ListNet loss is the cross entropy between the distributions calculated from and , respectively, over all permutations.
Due to the exponential number of permutations, Cao2007 propose a topone loss instead. Given the function and , the topone loss is defined as:
where is the th element in the best list, and is the probability that translation is ranked at the top by the function .
ListMLE: The ListMLE loss is the negative loglikelihood of the permutation probability of the correct ranking , calculated according to Xia et al. (2008):
(5) 
The training objective, which we want to minimize, is simply the total loss over all the lists in the tuning set.
3.2 Training with Instance Aggregating
Because there can be exponentially many possible translations of a sentence, it’s only feasible to rank the best translations rather than all of them; because the feature weights change at each iteration, we have a different best list to rank at each iteration. This is different from standard ranking problems in which the training instances stay the same each iteration.
Many previous tuning methods address this problem by merging the best list at the current iteration with the best lists at all previous iterations into a single list Hopkins and May (2011). We call this best merging. More formally, if is the best list of source sentence at iteration , then at each iteration, the model is trained on the set of lists:
For each source sentence , has only one training sample, which is a better and better approximation to the full hypothesis set of as more iterations pass.
Unlike previous tuning methods, our tuning method focuses on the distribution over permutation of the whole list. Moreover, unlike with listwise optimization methods used in IR, the best list produced for a source sentence at one iteration can differ dramatically from the best list produced at the next iteration. Merging best lists across iterations, each of which represents only a tiny fraction of the full search space, will lead to a “patchy” list that may hurt the learning performance of the listwise optimization algorithms.
To address this challenge, we propose instance aggregating: instead of merging best lists across different iterations, we view the translation lists from different iterations as individual training instances:
With this method, each source sentence has training instances at the th training iteration. In this way, we avoid “patchy” lists and obtain a better set of instances for tuning.
The above instance aggregating method can be used in a MERTlike iterative tuning algorithm as shown in Algorithm 1, which can be easily integrated into current open source systems. The two standard listwise losses can be easily optimized using gradientbased methods (Algorithm 2); both losses are convex, so convergence to a global optimum is guaranteed. The gradients of ListNET and ListMLE with respect to the parameters for a single sentence are:
For optimization, We use a minibatch stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm together with AdaDelta
Zeiler (2012) algorithm to adaptively set the learning rate.4 TopRank Enhanced Losses
In evaluating an SMT system, one naturally cares much more about the topranked results than the lowerranked results. Therefore, we think that getting the ranking right at the top of a list is more relevant for tuning. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the topranked translations instead of forcing the model to rank the entire list correctly.
Positiondependent Attention: To do this, we assign a higher cost to ranking errors that occur at the top and a lower cost to errors at the bottom. To make the cost sensitive to position, we define it as:
(6) 
where is the position in the ranking and is the size of the list.
Based on this cost function, we propose simple toprank enhanced listwise losses as extensions of both the ListNet loss and the ListMLE loss. The loss functions are defined as follows:
Along similar lines, Xia2008 also proposed a top ranking method, which assumes that only the correct ranking of top hypotheses is useful. Compared to our toprank enhanced losses, it may be too harsh to discard information about the rest of the ordering altogether; our method retains the whole ordering but weights it by position.
5 Experiments and Results
5.1 Data and Preparation
We conduct experiments on a large scale ChineseEnglish translation task. The parallel data comes from LDC corpora^{1}^{1}1The corpora include LDC2002E18, LDC2003E14, LDC2004E12, LDC2004T08, LDC2005T10 and LDC2007T09, which consists of 8.2 million of sentence pairs. Monolingual data includes Xinhua portion of Gigaword corpus. We use NIST MT03 evaluation test data as the development set, MT02, MT04 and MT05 as the test set.
Data  Usage  Sents. 
LDC  TM train  8,260,093 
Gigaword  LM train  14,684,074 
MT03  train  919 
MT02  test  878 
MT04  test  1,788 
MT05  test  1,082 
The Chinese side of the corpora is word segmented using ICTCLAS^{2}^{2}2http://ictclas.nlpir.org/. Word alignments of the parallel data are learned by running GIZA++ Och and Ney (2003) in both directions and refined under the “growdiagfinaland” method. We train a 5gram language model on the monolingual data with Modified KneserNey smoothingChen and Goodman (1999). Throughout the experiments, our translation system is an inhouse implementation of the hierarchical phrasebased translation system Chiang (2005). The translation quality is evaluated by 4gram caseinsensitive BLEU Papineni et al. (2002). Statistical significance testing between systems is conducted by bootstrap resampling implemented by Clark2011.
5.2 Tuning Settings
We build baselines for extended and sparse feature sets with two different tuning methods. First, we tune with PRO Hopkins and May (2011). As reported by Cherry2012, it’s hard to find the setting that performs well in general. We use MegaM version Daumé III (2004) with 30 iterations for basic feature set and 100 iterations for extended and sparse feature sets. Second, we run the kbest batch MIRA (KBMIRA) which shows comparable results with online version of MIRA Cherry and Foster (2012); Green et al. (2013). In our experiments, we run KBMIRA with standard settings in Moses^{3}^{3}3http://www.statmt.org/moses/. For the basic feature set, the baseline is tuned with MERT Och (2003).
For all our listwise tuning methods, we set batch size to 10. In our experiments, we can’t find a epoch size perform well in general, so we set epoch size to 100 for ListMLE with basic features, 200 for ListMLE with extended and sparse features, and 300 for ListNet. These values are set to achieve the best performance on the development set.
We set beam size to 20 throughout our experiments unless otherwise noted. Following Clark2011, we run the same training procedure 3 times and present the average results for stability. All tuning methods are executed for 40 iterations of the outer loop and returned the weights that achieve the best development BLEU scores. For all tuning methods on sparse feature set, we use the weight vector tuned by PRO on the extended feature set as initial weights.
5.3 Experiments of Listwise Learning Framework
We first investigate the effectiveness of our instance aggregating training procedure. The results are presented in Table 2. The table compare training with instance aggregating and best merging. As the result suggested, with the instance aggregating method, the performance improves on both listwise tuning approaches. For the rest of this paper, we use the instance aggregating as standard setting for listwise tuning approaches.
Methods  MT02  MT04  MT05  AVG 

Net  40.36  38.30  37.93  38.86(+0.00) 
ListNet  40.75  38.69  38.31  39.25(+0.39) 
MLE  39.82  37.88  37.65  38.45(+0.00) 
ListMLE  40.40  38.21  38.04  38.88(+0.43) 
Method  Extended Features  Sparse Features  

MT02  MT04  MT05  AVG  MT02  MT04  MT05  AVG  
PRO  40.30  38.12  37.69  38.70(+0.00)  40.63  38.46  38.24  39.11(+0.00) 
KBMIRA  40.48  37.71  37.37  38.52(0.18)  40.67  38.48  38.21  39.12(+0.01) 
ListNet  40.75  38.69  38.31  39.25(+0.55)  40.91  38.77  38.42  39.37(+0.26) 
ListMLE  40.40  38.21  38.04  38.88(+0.18)  40.63  38.68  38.24  39.18(+0.07) 
ListMLET5  41.02  38.84  38.79  39.55(+0.85)  41.12  38.91  38.89  39.64(+0.53) 
ListMLETE  41.15  39.01  39.16  39.77(+1.07)  41.25  39.00  39.27  39.84(+0.73) 
To verify the performance of our proposed listwise learning framework, we first compare systems with standard listwise losses to the baseline systems. The first four rows in Table 3 show the results. ListNet can outperform PRO by 0.55 BLEU score and 0.26 BLEU score on extended feature set and sparse feature set, respectively. Its main reason is that our listwise methods can obtain structured order information when we take complete translation list as instance.
We also observe that ListMLE can only get a modest performance compare to ListNet. We think the objective function of standard ListMLE which forces the whole list ranking in a correct order is too hard. ListNet mainly benefits from its top one permutation probability which only concerns the permutation with the best object ranked first.
5.4 Effect of Toprank Enhanced Losses
To verify our assumption that the correct rank in the top portion of a list is more informative, we conduct this set of experiments. Figure 2 shows the results of top ListMLE with different . Compared to ListMLE in Table 2, we find top ListMLE can make significant improvements, which means that the top rank is more important. We can observe an improvement in all test sets when we set from 1 to 5, but when we further increase , the results dropped. This situation indicates that the correct ranking at the top of the list is more informative and forcing the model to rank the bottom correctly as important as the top will sacrifice the ability to guide better search.
In Table 3, top5 ListMLE which only aims to rank the top five translations correctly can outperform the baseline and standard ListMLE. With our positiondependent attention, the toprank enhanced ListMLE can make further improvement over the baseline system(+1.07 and +0.73 on extended and sparse feature sets, respectively.) and achieves the best performance.
The top loss might be too loose as an approximation of the measure of BLEU. Compared to top ListMLE, our toprank enhanced ListMLE can further utilize the different portions of the list by different weights. To verify the claim, we further examined the learning processes of the two losses. For simplicity, the experiment is conducted on a translation list generated by random parameters. The results are shown in Figure 3. We can see that our toprank enhanced loss almost completely inversely correlates with BLEU after iteration 70. In contrast, after iteration 150, although top5 loss is still decreasing, BLEU starts to drop.
Methods  MT02  MT04  MT05  AVG 

PRO  40.90  38.84  38.64  39.64(+0.00) 
KBMIRA  41.09  38.49  38.62  39.40(0.06) 
ListNet  41.49  39.25  39.17  39.97(+0.51) 
ListMLET5  41.26  39.63  39.32  40.07(+0.61) 
ListMLETE  41.85  39.96  39.88  40.56(+1.10) 
Due to the high computation cost of ListNet, we only perform the toprank enhanced ListMLE in this paper. Our preliminary experiments indicate that the performance of ListNet can be further improved with a top2 loss. We think our toprank enhanced method is also useful for ListNet, but due to its computational demands it needs to be further investigated.
5.5 Impact of the Size of Candidate Lists
Our listwise tuning methods directly model the order of the translation list, it is clear that the choice of the translation list size has an impact on our methods. A larger candidate list size may result in the availability of more information during tuning. In order to verify our tuning methods’ capability of handling the larger translation list, we increase from 20 to 100. The comparison results are shown in Table 4. With a larger size , our tuning methods also perform better than baselines. For ListNet and top5 ListMLE, we observe that the improvements over baseline is smaller than size 20. This results show that the order information loss caused by directly drop the bottom is aggravated with larger list size. However, our toprank enhanced method still get a slight better result than size 20 and significant improvement over baseline by 1.1 BLEU score. This indicate that our toprank enhanced method is more stable and can still effectively exploit the larger size translation list.
5.6 Performance on Basic Feature Set
Since the effectiveness of high dimensional feature set, recent work pays more attention to this scenario. Although previous discriminative tuning methods can effectively handle high dimensional feature set, MERT is still the dominant tuning method for basic features. Here, we investigate our toprank enhanced tuning methods’ capability of handling basic feature set. Table 5 summarizes the comparison results. Firstly, we observe that ListNet and ListMLE can perform comparable with MERT. With our topranked enhanced method, we can get a better performance than MERT by 0.25 BLEU score. These results show that our topranked enhanced tuning method can learn more informations of translation list even with a basic feature set.
Methods  MT02  MT04  MT05  AVG 

MERT  37.72  37.13  36.77  37.21(+0.00) 
PRO  37.85  37.21  36.68  37.24(+0.03) 
KBMIRA  37.97  37.28  36.58  37.28(+0.07) 
ListNet  37.71  37.47  36.78  37.32(+0.11) 
ListMLE  37.54  37.54  36.65  37.24(+0.03) 
ListMLET5  37.90  37.32  36.84  37.35(+0.14) 
ListMLETE  38.03  37.49  36.85  37.46(+0.25) 
6 Related Work
The ranking problem is well studied in IR community. There are many methods been proposed, including pointwise Nallapati (2004), pairwise Herbrich et al. (1999); Burges et al. (2005) and listwise Cao et al. (2007); Xia et al. (2008) algorithms. Experiment results show that listwise methods deliver better performance than pointwise and pairwise methods in general Liu (2010).
Most NLP researches take ranking as an extra step after searching from its output space Charniak and Johnson (2005); Collins and Terry Koo (2005); Duh (2008). In SMT research, listwise approaches also have been employed for the reranking tasks. For example, Li2013 utilized two listwise approaches to rerank the translation outputs and achieved the best segmentlevel correlation with human judgments. Niehues2015 employed ListNet to rescore the best translations, which significantly outperforms MERT, KBMIRA and PRO. zhang2016 viewed the loglinear model as a pointwise ranking function and shifted it to listwise ranking function by introducing listwise features and outperformed the loglinear model. Compared to these efforts, our method takes a further step by integrating listwise ranking methods into the iterative training.
There are also some researches use ranking methods for tuning to guide better search. In SMT, previous attempts on using ranking as a tuning methods usually perform pairwise comparisons on a subset of translation pairs Chiang et al. (2008); Hopkins and May (2011); Watanabe (2012); Bazrafshan et al. (2012); Guzmán et al. (2015). Dreyer2015 even took all translation pairs of the best list as training instances, which only obtained a comparable result with PRO and the implementation is more complicate. In this paper, we model the entire list as a whole unit, and propose training objectives that are sensitive to different parts of the list.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a listwise learning framework for statistical machine translation. In order to adapt listwise approaches, we use an iterative training framework in which instances from different iterations are aggregated into the training set. To emphasize the top order of the list, we further propose toprank enhanced listwise learning losses. Compared to previous efforts in SMT tuning, our method directly models the order information of the complete translation list. Experiments show our method could lead to significant improvements of translation quality in different feature sets and beam size.
Our current work focuses on the traditional SMT task. For future work, it will be interesting to integrate our methods to modern neural machine translation systems or other structure prediction problems. It may also be interesting to explore more methods on listwise tuning framework, such as investigating different methods to enhance top order of translation list directly w.r.t a given evaluation metric.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 61672277, 61300158 and 61472183). Part of Huadong Chen’s contribution was made while visiting University of Notre Dame. His visit was supported by the joint PhD program of China Scholarship Council.
References
 Bazrafshan et al. (2012) Marzieh Bazrafshan, Tagyoung Chung, and Daniel Gildea. 2012. Tuning as linear regression. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 543–547. http://aclweb.org/anthology/N121062.

Burges et al. (2005)
Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole
Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005.
Learning to rank using
gradient descent.
In
Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Machine Learning
. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICML ’05, pages 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/1102351.1102363.  Cao et al. (2007) Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, TieYan Liu, MingFeng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: From pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICML ’07, pages 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1145/1273496.1273513.
 Charniak and Johnson (2005) Eugene Charniak and Mark Johnson. 2005. Coarsetofine nbest parsing and maxent discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 173–180. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P051022.
 Chen et al. (2013) Boxing Chen, Roland Kuhn, and George Foster. 2013. Vector space model for adaptation in statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1285–1293. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P131126.
 Chen and Goodman (1999) Stanley F Chen and Joshua Goodman. 1999. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Computer Speech & Language 13(4):359–394.
 Cherry and Foster (2012) Colin Cherry and George Foster. 2012. Batch tuning strategies for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 427–436. http://aclweb.org/anthology/N121047.
 Chiang (2005) David Chiang. 2005. A hierarchical phrasebased model for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 263–270. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P051033.
 Chiang et al. (2008) David Chiang, Yuval Marton, and Philip Resnik. 2008. Online largemargin training of syntactic and structural translation features. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 224–233. http://aclweb.org/anthology/D081024.
 Clark et al. (2011) H. Jonathan Clark, Chris Dyer, Alon Lavie, and A. Noah Smith. 2011. Better hypothesis testing for statistical machine translation: Controlling for optimizer instability. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 176–181. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P112031.
 Collins and Terry Koo (2005) Collins and Michael Terry Koo. 2005. Discriminative reranking for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics, Volume 31, Number 1, March 2005 http://aclweb.org/anthology/J051003.

Daumé III (2004)
Hal Daumé III. 2004.
Notes on CG and LMBFGS optimization of logistic regression.
 Dreyer and Dong (2015) Markus Dreyer and Yuanzhe Dong. 2015. Apro: Allpairs ranking optimization for mt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1018–1023. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/N151106.
 Duh (2008) Kevin Duh. 2008. Ranking vs. regression in machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, StatMT ’08, pages 191–194. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1626394.1626425.
 Green et al. (2013) Spence Green, Sida Wang, Daniel Cer, and D. Christopher Manning. 2013. Fast and adaptive online training of featurerich translation models. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–321. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P131031.
 Guiver and Snelson (2009) John Guiver and Edward Snelson. 2009. Bayesian inference for plackettluce ranking models. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICML ’09, pages 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1145/1553374.1553423.
 Guzmán et al. (2015) Francisco Guzmán, Preslav Nakov, and Stephan Vogel. 2015. Analyzing optimization for statistical machine translation: Mert learns verbosity, pro learns length. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China, pages 62–72. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/K151007.

Herbrich et al. (1999)
Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Klaus Obermayer. 1999.
Support vector learning for ordinal regression.
In
Artificial Neural Networks, 1999. ICANN 99. Ninth International Conference on (Conf. Publ. No. 470)
. IET, volume 1, pages 97–102.  Hopkins and May (2011) Mark Hopkins and Jonathan May. 2011. Tuning as ranking. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1352–1362. http://aclweb.org/anthology/D111125.
 Koehn et al. (2003) Philipp Koehn, Franz J. Och, and Daniel Marcu. 2003. Statistical phrasebased translation. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. http://aclweb.org/anthology/N031017.
 Li et al. (2013) Maoxi Li, Aiwen Jiang, and Mingwen Wang. 2013. Listwise approach to learning to rank for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the XIV Machine Translation Summit .
 Lin and Och (2004) ChinYew Lin and Franz Josef Och. 2004. ORANGE: A method for evaluating automatic evaluation metrics for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
 Liu (2010) TieYan Liu. 2010. Learning to rank for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, SIGIR ’10, pages 904–904. https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835676.
 Liu et al. (2006) Yang Liu, Qun Liu, and Shouxun Lin. 2006. Treetostring alignment template for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 609–616. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P061077.
 Nallapati (2004) Ramesh Nallapati. 2004. Discriminative models for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, SIGIR ’04, pages 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/1008992.1009006.
 Niehues et al. (2015) Jan Niehues, QuocKhanh DO, Alexandre Allauzen, and Alex Waibel. 2015. Listnetbased mt rescoring. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 248–255. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W153030.
 Och (2003) Franz Josef Och. 2003. Minimum error rate training in statistical machine translation. In ACL ’03: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, pages 160–167. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075117.
 Och and Ney (2003) Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Comput. Linguist. 29(1):19–51. https://doi.org/http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=778824.
 Papineni et al. (2002) Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P021040.
 Watanabe (2012) Taro Watanabe. 2012. Optimized online rank learning for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 253–262. http://aclweb.org/anthology/N121026.
 Watanabe et al. (2007) Taro Watanabe, Jun Suzuki, Hajime Tsukada, and Hideki Isozaki. 2007. Online largemargin training for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLPCoNLL). http://aclweb.org/anthology/D071080.
 Xia et al. (2008) Fen Xia, TieYan Liu, Jue Wang, Wensheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: Theory and algorithm. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICML ’08, pages 1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1145/1390156.1390306.
 Yamada and Knight (2001) Kenji Yamada and Kevin Knight. 2001. A syntaxbased statistical translation model. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P011067.
 Zeiler (2012) Matthew D Zeiler. 2012. Adadelta: An adaptive learning rate method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5701 .
 Zhang et al. (2016) M. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Luan, and M. Sun. 2016. Listwise ranking functions for statistical machine translation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 24(8):1464–1472. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2016.2560527.
Comments
There are no comments yet.