Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2018 / Denoising Neural Machine Translation Training with Trusted Data and Online Data Selection

Denoising Neural Machine Translation Training with Trusted Data and Online Data Selection

Summary

Web-crawled and automatically mined parallel corpora often contain misaligned, partially translated or otherwise flawed sentence pairs, and NMT is more sensitive to such noise than SMT. Domain data selection is well studied, but its techniques had not been adapted for denoising. The authors (Google Research) assume a huge noisy corpus and only a small trusted set of a few thousand sentence pairs. They first fine-tune the noisy NMT model on the trusted data to get a slightly cleaner model. A sentence pair's noise is then scored by how differently the two seq2seq models treat it, which generalizes the bilingual cross-entropy difference (CED) of Axelrod et al. During online training, batches are chosen so the data the model sees becomes progressively cleaner, a curriculum-like schedule. On Paracrawl data, this gives large BLEU gains over random ordering, while a neural LM selector built the same way does not help. The work shows that a small amount of trusted data can make NMT training robust to heavy corpus noise.

Key points

  • Trusted data: WMT newstest 2010–2011 served as the trusted set, and newstest 2012–2013 was used as the dev set. The approach needs only a tiny trusted fraction of the full corpus.

  • Online denoising (P3) vs random order (P1) on Paracrawl:

    Test setP1 (random order)P3 (online denoising)
    n201431.635.2
    d201530.735.6
    patent37.246.9
  • Data order matters:

    • Reversing the schedule so the model sees clean data first (P4) yields only 32.6 / 31.1 / 40.9 BLEU on n2014 / d2015 / patent.
    • Successive fine-tuning on nested subsets (S 80% ⊃ S 40% ⊃ S 20%) improves the score at each step, ending at 34.4 / 34.6 / 45.6.
  • NNLM selection fails at denoising:

    • Its scores do not track human quality ratings.
    • Fine-tuning on the top 20% chosen by NNLM (P9) gives 31.8 / 30.5 / 35.4, with patent dropping below the P1 baseline.
    • Fine-tuning on the top 20% chosen by the NMT-based method (P8) gives 34.3 / 34.7 / 45.8.
  • Strong baseline: the WMT baseline W1, a standard LSTM RNN, reaches 36.2 detokenized BLEU on n2014 (40.2 tokenized).

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages · Machine translation

Topics: Machine translation

Cited by

48 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 3 of them have a page here, 45 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.18653/v1/w18-6314

@inproceedings{wang2018denoising,
  title = {{Denoising Neural Machine Translation Training with Trusted Data and Online Data Selection}},
  author = {Wang, Wei and Watanabe, Taro and Hughes, Macduff and Nakagawa, Tetsuji and Chelba, Ciprian},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.18653/v1/w18-6314},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w18-6314}
}

References

1 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Amittai Axelrod, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2011. Domain adaptation via pseudo in-domain data selection. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 355–362. \#\# Discussion find our card

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/papers/wang-2018-denoising-neural-machine-translation-training/