Dependency Trees and Machine Translation Vamshi Ambati Spring 2008 Adv MT Seminar 02 April 2008

Today Introduction –Dependency formalism –Syntax in Machine Translation Dependency Tree based Machine Translation –By projection –By synchronous modeling Conclusion and Future

Today Introduction –Dependency formalism –Syntax in Machine Translation Dependency Tree based Machine Translation –By projection –By synchronous modeling Conclusion and Future

Dependency Trees John gave Mary an apple Phrase Structure Trees

Dependency Trees John:N gave:V Mary:N an:DT apple:N S VP NP Phrase Structure Trees: Labels

Dependency Trees John gave Mary an apple gave apple Head Percolation: - Usually done deterministically - Assuming one head per phrase*

Dependency Trees John Mary an gave apple

Dependency Trees JohnMarygaveanapple

Dependency Trees: Basics Child Dependent Modifier John gave SUBJ Parent Governor Head Modified (optional) The direction of arrows can be head-child or child-head (has to be mentioned)

Dependency Trees: Basics Properties –Every word has a single head/parent Except for the root –Completely connected tree –Acyclic If w i →w j then never w j → * w i Variants –Projective: Non-crossing between dependencies If w i ->w j, then for all k between i and j, either w k ->w i or w k - >w j holds –Non-Projective: Allow crossings between depdenencies

Projective dependency tree ounces Projectiveness: all the words between here finally depend on either on “ was ” or “. ” Example credit: Yuji Matsumoto, NAIST, Japan

Non-projective dependency tree Example from: R. McDonald and F. Pereira EACL, Direction of edges: from a parent to the children Note: Phrases thus extracted which are united by dependencies could be discontinuous

Dependency Grammar (DG) in the Grammar Formalism Timeline Panini (2600 years ago, India) recognised, distinguished and classified semantic, syntactic and morphological dependencies (Bharati, Natural Language Processing) The Arabic grammarians (1200 years ago, Iraq) recognised government and syntactic dependency structure, (The Foundations of Grammar - Owens) The Latin grammarians (800 years ago) recognised 'determination' and dependency structures. - Percival, "Reflections on the History of Dependency Notions“ Lucien Tesnie`re (1930s, France) developed a relatively formal and sophisticated theory of DG grammar for use in schools PSG, CCG etc were around the same time in early 20 th century Source: ELLSSI 2000 Tutorial on Dependency Grammars

Dependency Trees: some phenomenon DG has been widely accepted as a variant of PSG, but it is not strongly equivalent –Constituents are implicit in a DepTree and can be derived –Relations are explicit and can be labelled although optional –No explicit non-terminal nodes, which means no unary productions too –Can handle discontinuous phrases too Known problems with Coordination and Gerunds

Phrase structure vs Dependency Phrase structure suitable to languages with –rather fixed word order patterns –clear constituency structures –English etc Dependency structure suitable to languages with –greater freedom of word order –order is controlled more by pragmatic than by syntactic factors –Slavonic (Czech, Polish) and some Romance (Italian, spanish etc)

Today Introduction –Dependency formalism –Syntax in Machine Translation Dependency Tree based Machine Translation –By projection –By synchronous modeling Conclusion and Future

Phrasal SMT discussion Advantages: –Do not have to compose translations unnecessarily –Local re-ordering captured in phrases –Already specific to the domain and capture context locally Disadvantages: –Specificity and no generalization –Discontiguous phrases not considered –Global reordering –Estimation problems (long vs short phrases) –Can not model phenomenon across phrases Limitations: –Phrase sizes (how much before I run into out of memory?) –Corpus Availability makes it feasible only to certain language pairs

Syntax in MT: Many Representations WordLevel MT : No syntax SMT: Phrases / contiguous sequences SMT Hierarchical : Pseudo Syntax Syntax based SMT : Constituent Syntax based SMT: CCG Syntax based SMT: LFG Syntax based SMT: Dependency

Syntax in MT: Many ways of incorporation Pre-procesing –Reordering input –Reordered training corpus Translation models –Syntactically informed alignment models –Better distortion models Language Models –Syntactic language models –Syntax motivated models Post-processing –Nbest list reranking with syntactic information –Translation correction: Case marker/TAM correction –True casing etc? –Multi combinations with Syntactic backbones?

Syntax based SMT discussion Inversion Transduction Grammar (Wu ‘96) –Very constrained form of syntax : One non-terminal –Some expressive limitations –Not linguistically motivated –Effectively learns preferences for flip/no-flip Generative Tree to String (Yamada & Knight 2001) –Expressiveness (last week presentation) –No discontiguous phrases Multitext grammars (Melamed 2003) – Formalized, but MT work yet to be realized Hierarchical MT (Chang 2005) –Linguistic generalizations –Handles discontiguous phrases recursively –Estimation problems and Phrase table are increased even more –Across phrase boundary modeling

Syntax in MT and Dependency Trees SourceTarget Syntax SourceTarget Syntax Tree and Tree Tree and String SeSe SeSe SfSf Source side tree is provided Target side is obtained by projection Problem of Isomorphism between trees head-switching empty-dep ; extra-dep Source side tree is provided Target side is provided Ideally non-isomorphic trees should be modeled too

Today Introduction –Dependency formalism –Syntax in Machine Translation Dependency Tree based Machine Translation –By projection –By synchronous modeling Conclusion and Future

Dependency Tree based Machine Translation By projection –Fox 2002 –Dekang Lin 2004 –Quirk et al 2004, Quirk et al 2006, Menezes et al 2007 By synchronous modeling –Alshawi et al 2001 –Jason Eisner 2003 –Fox 2005 –Yuang Lin and Daniel Marcu 2004

Phrasal Cohesion and Statistical Machine Translation Heidi Fox, EMNLP 2002 English-French Corpus was used –En-Fr are similar For phrase structure trees - –Head Crossings involve head constituent of the phrase with its modifier spans –Modifier Crossings involve only spans of modifier constituents For dependency trees –Head Crossings means crossings of spans of child with its parent –Modifier crossings same as above Dependency structures show cohesive nature across translation

A Path-based Transfer model Dekang Lin 2004 Input –Word-aligned –Source parsed Syntax translation model –Set of paths in source tree –Extract connected target path Generalization of paths to POS Modeling –Relative likelihood –Smoothing factor for noise

A Path-based Transfer model Dekang Lin 2004 Decoding –Parse input and extract all paths, extract target paths –Find a set of transfer rules Cover the entire source tree Can be consistently merged –Lexicalized rule preferred –Future work? Word ordering is addressed –Transfer rules from same sen: follow order in sentence –Only one example of path: follow order in rule –Many examples: pick relative distance from head Highest probability –Dynamic Programming Min-set cover problem applied to trees

A Path-based Transfer model Dekang Lin 2004 Evaluation –English-French: 1.2M –Source parsed by Minipar –1755 test set –5 to 15 words long sentences –Compared to Koehn’s results from 2003 paper No Language Model or extra generation module –Order defined by paths is linear –Some heuristics to maintain linearity Generalization of paths (transfer rules) quadratic vs. exponential Direct Correspondence Approach (DCA) is violated when translation divergences exist Very Naïve notion of reordering and merge conflict resolution SystemBLEU IBM PBSMT Current0.2612

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al ACL 2004,05,06 Project dependencies from source to target via word alignment –One-one: project dependency to aligned words –Many-one: nothing to do, as the projected is the head –One-many : project to right most, and rest are attached to it Reattachment of modifiers to lowest possible node that preserves target word order Treelet extraction –All subtrees on source until a particular limit, and the corresponding target fragment which is connected –MLE for scoring

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al ACL 2004,05,06 tired and dogs men fatigues et chiens hommes tired men and dogs hommes et chiens fatigues et chiens hommes fatigues Treelet with missing roots

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al 2004,05,06 Translation Model –Trained from the aligned projected corpus –Log-linear with feature functions Channel Model –Treelet Prob –Lexical Prob Order Model –Head relative –Swap model Target Model –Target language model –Bigram Agreement model (opt)

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al ACL 2004,05,06 Decoding (Step by step) –Input is a dependency analyzed source Challenge is that left-right may not work when starting with a Tree –Obtain best target tree combining the models –Exhaustive search using DP Translate bottom up, from a given subtree (ITG) For each head node extract all matching treelets: x_i –For each uncovered subtrees extract all matching treelets: y_i »Try all insertions of y_i into slots in x_i »Ordering model ranks all the re-ordering possibilities for the modifiers

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al ACL 2004,05,06 Decoding Optimizations –Duplicate translations check&reuse –Nbest list (only maintain top best candidates) –Early pruning before reordering (channel model) –Greedy reordering (pick best one and move on) –Variable n-best size (dynamically reduce ‘n’ with increasing uncovered subtrees) –Determinstic pruning of treelets based on MLE (allowing decoder to try more reorderings) A* decoding –Estimate the cost of an uncovered node reordering instead of computing it exactly –Heuristics for optimistic estimates for each of the models

Dependency Treelet Translation Quirk et al ACL 2004,05,06 Evaluation –Eng-French –1.5M parallel Microsoft technical documentation –NLPWIN parsed on Eng side –GIZA++ trained –Target LM: French side of parallel data –Tuned on 250 sens for MaxBLEU –Tested on 10K unseen –1 Reference

Improvements to Treelet Translation Minimal Translation Units (HLT NAACL 2005) –Bilingual n-gram channel model (Banchs et.al 2005) M = m1 = –Instead of conditioning on the surface adjacent MTU, they condition on Headwordchain Dependency Order Templates (ACL 2007) Improve Generality in Translation Learn un-lexicalised order templates Only use at runtime for restricting search space in reordering

Dependency Tree based Machine Translation By projection –Fox 2002 –Dekang Lin 2004 –Quirk et al 2004, Quirk et al 2006, Menezes et al 2007 By synchronous modeling –Alshawi et al 2001 –Jason Eisner 2003 –Yuang Lin and Daniel Marcu 2004 –Fox 2005

Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers Alshwai et al 2001 Head transducers variant –Middle-out string transduction vs. left-right –Can be used in a hierarchical fashion, if you consider input/output for non-head transitions as ‘strings’ rather than ‘words’ Dependency transduction model Empty in/out May not always be a dependency model in conventional sense

Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers Alshwai et al 2001 Training: Given unaligned bitext –Compute coocurrence statistics at wordlevel –Find a hierarchical synchronous alignment driven by cost function –Construct a set of head transducers that explain the alignment –Calculate the transition weights by MLE Decoding –Similar to CKY or Chart Parsing, but ‘middle-out’ –Given input, find the best applications of transducers –A derivation spanning entire input means it probably has found best dependencies for source & target –Else string together most probable partial hypothesis to form a tree –Pick the target tree with lowest score and read off the string

Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers Alshwai et al 2001 Evaluation –Eng – Spanish (ATIS data – 13,966 train, 1185 test) –Eng – Jap (Speech transcribed data – 12,226 train, 3253 test) Discussion –Language agnostic, direction agnostic –Induced dependency tree may not be syntactically motivated, but suited to translation –Application of transducers is done locally, and so less context information –A single transducer tries to do everything, training may have sparsity problems

Learning non-isomorphic tree mappings for MT Jason Eisner 2003 Non-Isomorphism not just due to language divergences but free translation A version of Tree Substitution Grammar –To learn from unaligned non-isomorphic trees –A statistical model based generalized instead of linguistic minimalism –Expressive with empty string insertions –Formulate for both PSG and DG Translation model –Joint model P (T s,T t,A) Alignment Decoding Training –Factorization helps: Reconstruct all derivations for a tree by efficient ‘tree parsing’ algorithm for TSG EM as an efficient inside-outside training on all derivations Decoding –Chart Parsing to create a forest of derivations for input tree –Maximize over probability of derivations –1-best derivation parse is syntactic-alignment 1. Kids kiss Sam quite often 2. Lots of kids give kisses to Sam

Machine Translation Using Probabilistic Synchronous Dependency Insertion Grammars Ding and Marcu 2005 SDIG –Like STAG, STIG for phrase structures –Basic units are elementary trees –Handles non-isomorphism at sub-tree level Cross-lingual inconsistencies are handled if they appear within basic units –Crossing-dependency –Broken-dependency

Machine Translation Using Probabilistic Synchronous Dependency Insertion Grammars Ding and Marcu 2005 Induction of SDIG for MT as Synchronous hierarchical tree partitioning –Train IBM Mode 1 scores for bitext –For each category of Node, starting with NP - –Perform synchronous tree partitioning operations Compute Prob of word pair (ei,fi) where operation can be performed Heuristic functions (Graphical model) guide the partitioning

Machine Translation Using Probabilistic Synchronous Dependency Insertion Grammars Ding and Marcu 2005 Translation Decoding for MT –Translation is obtained by maximizing over all possible derivations of the source tree translation of the ‘elementary trees’ –Analogous to HMM (Emission and Transition probs with elementary trees) –Decoding is similar to a Viterbi-style algorithm on the tree Hooks –Augmenting corpus by singleton ETs from Model1 –Smoothing probabilities

Machine Translation Using Probabilistic Synchronous Dependency Insertion Grammars Ding and Marcu 2005 Evaluation –Chinese-English system –Dan Bikels parses for both Cn,En trained from Parallel treebanks –Test with 4 refs Compared with –GIZA trained –ISI Rewrite Decoder NIST increased 97% BLUE increased 27% Reordering ignored for now

Dependency Based Statistical MT Fox 2005 Czech-English parallel corpus (Penn TB and Prague TB) –Morphological process and tecto-grammatical conversion for Czech trees –No processing for English trees Alignment of subtrees via IBM Model4 scores –followed by structural modification of trees to suit alignment (KEEP,SPLIT,BUD…) Translation Model :

Dependency Based Statistical MT Fox 2005 Decoding –Bestfirst decoder –Process given Czech input to dependency tree and translate each node independently –For each node Choose head position Generate english POS seq Generate the feature list Perform structural mutations Syntax Language Model –Takes as input a forest of phrase structures –Invert decoder forest output (dep tree nodes) into phrase structures –Reordering is entirely left to LM Evaluation –Work in progress –Proposed to use BLEU

Today Introduction –Dependency formalism –Syntax in Machine Translation Dependency Tree based Machine Translation –By projection –By synchronous modeling Conclusion and Future

Conclusion The good - –Easy to work with –Cohesive during projection –Builds well on top of existing PBSMT (Effective combination of lexicalization and syntax) –Supports modeling a target even with crossing phrase boundaries –Gracefully degrade over new domains The bad – –Reordering is not crucial, but expensive –Lots of hooks for decoding –Generalization explodes space The not so good – –Current approaches require a dependency tree on source side and a strong model for the target side

What Next… 1 year –Better scoring and estimation in syntactic translation models –Improvement in Dependency trees parse quality directly translates? (Chris Quirk et al 2006) ? What about MST Parser etc? –Better Word-Alignment and effect on model –Incorporating labeled dependencies. Will it help? –Factored Dependency Tree based models –Approximate subtree matching and Parsing algorithms 3-5 years –Decoding Algorithms and the Target-Ordering problem –Discriminative approaches to MT are catching up. How can syntax be incorporated into such a framework –Better syntactic language models based on the dependency formalisms –Semantics in Translation (Are DepTrees the first step?) –Fusion of Dependency and Constituent approaches (LFG style) –Joint Modeling approaches (Eisner 03, Smith 06 QS Grammar) –Taking MT to other applications like Cross-lingual Retrieval and QA which already use DepFormalisms

Thanks to Lori Levin: For discussion on Dependency tree formalism Amr Ahmed: For discussion and separation of work Respective authors of the papers for some of the graphic images I liberally used in the slides

Questions Thanks

DG Variants Case Grammar (Anderson) Daughter-Dependency Theory (Hudson) Dependency Unification Grammar (Hellwig) Functional-Generative Description (Sgall) Lexicase (Starosta) Meaning-Text Model (Mel'cuk) Metataxis (Schubert) Unification Dependency Grammar (Maxwell) Constraint Dependency Grammar (Maruyama)

Motivation Questions 1. How is dependency analysis used in Syntax MT? How do the algorithms vary if only the source side of analysis is present? 2. How do the decoding and transfer phases adapt when using dependency analysis? What algorithms exist and what is the complexity analysis? 3. How does dependency based syntax incorporation in MT, compare with other grammar formalisms like the phrase structure grammar? 4. Is there a class of languages which yield better to dependency analysis vs. other analysis? 5. Dependency analysis being close to semantics, does it help MT produce better results?

Other Papers QuasiSynchronous Grammars for Soft Syntactic Projection David Smith and Jason Eisner 2007 Automatic Learning of Parallel Dependency Treelet Pairs Yuan Ding and Martha Palmer 2004 Dependency vs. Constituents for Tree-Based Alignment Dan Gildea 2003 My Compilation: – ulehttp://kathmandu.lti.cs.cmu.edu:8080/wiki/index.php/AMT:Sched ule