G'day, [snip] > > 1. Can papers on EBMT succeed in getting published (especially in > > non-expert, i.e. MT-specific, conferences) without making direct > > comparisons to SMT? > > Given the above trend, I think an effective response is to explicitly > say in an EBMT paper "yes I am doing EBMT but creating the example > phrases and their translation by hand; some SMT is creating the > phrases by machine; for me an open question is not only how to create > lots of patterns automatically but how good the actual patterns are", > which simultaneously shows familiarity with the relevant SMT work, > brings it into the picture in the right way, and addresses a point on > which SMT-style EBMT is vulnerable. > > the bigger point, though, is: why should one not make comparisons to > SMT-style EBMT? A serious weakness of EBMT has always been the > bottleneck of building the example patterns and their translations > manually. SMT-style EBMT claims to overcome this bottleneck. Good > science demands that old-style EBMT work address this. You can still > then redirect the issue to the particular other, non-building, point > you are investigating.
I think the point Andy was trying to make was why stop there? Why should EBMT be asked to compare to SMT but not rule-based MT? Why are SMT approaches not rejected for not comparing their results to state of the art EBMT and rule base MT? It would be great if every one had the resources to do this in every paper, but no one does. And given that no-one does, why are EBMT papers criticized for not making comparisons, while SMT papers aren't? -- Francis Bond <www.kecl.ntt.co.jp/icl/mtg/members/bond/> NTT Communication Science Laboratories | Machine Translation Research Group _______________________________________________ MT-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.computing.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/mt-list
