Neural Machine Translation with Supervised Attention
Open accessAbstract
The attention mechanisim is appealing for neural machine translation, since it is able to dynam- ically encode a source sentence by generating a alignment between a target word and source words. Unfortunately, it has been proved to be worse than conventional alignment models in aligment accuracy. In this paper, we analyze and explain this issue from the point view of re- ordering, and propose a supervised attention which is learned with guidance from conventional alignment models. Experiments on two Chinese-to-English translation tasks show that the super- vised attention mechanism yields better alignments leading to substantial gains over the standard attention based NMT.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Various enhancements to attention have been proposed, such as local attention, supervised attention, hierarchical attention, and self-attention.
“Since then, various enhancements have been proposed, such as local attention (Luong et al. 2015), supervised attention (Mi et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2016), hierarchical attention (Zhao et al. 2018), and self-attention (Vaswani et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018).”
From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al. 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Liu, L., Utiyama, M., Finch, A., & Sumita, E.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (JP)
- University of Malta (MT)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1609.04186
- OpenAlex
- W2520028199
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Keywords
- neural machine translation, attention mechanism, word alignment, reordering, Chinese-English translation, alignment accuracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
