I think Simon's reply answers your question. Nonetheless (and picking up a theme
After reading the introduction, almost all examples of what they call Phrasal SMT seems (to me) examples of EBMT systems.
I started on the list last summer), I find it pretty much incredible that you won't find
the words 'example-based' in _any_ paper on Phrase-based EBMT. In a recent paper
comparing our Marker-Based EBMT system to SMT (which'll appear in the special
issue of 'Language Engineering' that Michel & Rada are editing), I noted that no
phrase-based SMT papers acknowledge the (obvious, to me) debt they owe to EBMT:
after all, EBMT has been developing sub-sentential syntactic and lexical chunks for
years before the SMT thought it'd be a good thing to try. I don't know why this is.
Very occasionally, you'll hear commentators (such as Ed Hovy at the MT Summit IX
panel session) say that what (say) Franz Och is doing is EBMT-like, but nowhere will
you see this written down. I'd love to be corrected here, but I've read most of the SMT
papers in recent years and haven't seen it anywhere.
As an aside, I think the phrasal chunks that SMT produces are different from EBMT
chunks in that they're pretty much just n-grams, whereas EBMT systems derive their
sub-sentential alignments on the basis of (at least some) syntactic reasoning.
Andy.
_______________________________________________ Mt-list mailing list
