CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech Recognition and Synthesis

Negative Lexical Constraints in Neural Machine Translation

Open access
Jon, Josef, Variš, Dušan, Novák, Michal, Aires, João Paulo, Bojar, Ondřej·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2308.03601arXiv 2308.03601
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores negative lexical constraining in English to Czech neural machine translation. Negative lexical constraining is used to prohibit certain words or expressions in the translation produced by the neural translation model. We compared various methods based on modifying either the decoding process or the training data. The comparison was performed on two tasks: paraphrasing and feedback-based translation refinement. We also studied to which extent these methods "evade" the constraints presented to the model (usually in the dictionary form) by generating a different surface form of a given constraint.We propose a way to mitigate the issue through training with stemmed negative constraints to counter the model's ability to induce a variety of the surface forms of a word that can result in bypassing the constraint. We demonstrate that our method improves the constraining, although the problem still persists in many cases.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.03601

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A recent benchmark compares decoding-time and training-time approaches, and notes that models can still slip around bans with small spelling changes or closely related word forms.

    “A recent benchmark compares decoding-time and training-time approaches, and notes that models can still slip around bans with small spelling changes or closely related word forms; they also test simple fixes to reduce this [Jon et al., 2023].”

    From Antislop: A Comprehensive Framework for Identifying and Eliminating Repetitive Patterns in Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Jon et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Anderson, P., Fernando, B., Johnson, M., and Gould, S. (2017). Guided open vocabulary image captioning with constrained beam search. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 936-945, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Barrault, L., Biesialska, M., Bojar, O., Costa-jussà, M. R., Federmann, C., Graham, Y., Grund- kiewicz, R., Haddow, B., Huck, M., Joanis, E., Kocmi, T., Koehn, P., Lo, C.-k., Ljubešić, N., Monz, C., Morishita, M., Nagata, M., Nakazawa, T., Pal, S., Post, M., and Zampieri, M. (2020). Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (WMT20). In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1-55, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Barrault, L., Bojar, O., Costa-jussà, M. R., Federmann, C., Fishel, M., Graham, Y., Haddow, B., Huck, M., Koehn, P., Malmasi, S., Monz, C., Müller, M., Pal, S., Post, M., and Zampieri, M. (2019). Findings of the 2019 conference on machine translation (WMT19). In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1-61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Bergmanis, T. and Pinnis, M. (2021a). Dynamic terminology integration for COVID-19 and other emerging domains. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 821-827, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Bergmanis, T. and Pinnis, M. (2021b). Facilitating terminology translation with target lemma annotations. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3105-3111, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Bojar, O., Macháček, M., Tamchyna, A., and Zeman, D. (2013). Scratching the surface of possible translations. In Habernal, I. and Matoušek, V., editors, Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pages 465-474, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  7. Chatterjee, R., Negri, M., Turchi, M., Federico, M., Specia, L., and Blain, F. (2017). Guiding neural machine translation decoding with external knowledge. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 157-168, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Chen, G., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., and Li, V. O. (2020). Lexical-constraint-aware neural machine translation via data augmentation. In Bessiere, C., editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-20, pages 3587-3593. Interna- tional Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main track.
  9. Dinu, G., Mathur, P., Federico, M., and Al-Onaizan, Y. (2019). Training neural machine translation to apply terminology constraints. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3063-3068, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. Hanneman, G. and Dinu, G. (2020). How should markup tags be translated? In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 1160-1173, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Hasler, E., de Gispert, A., Iglesias, G., and Byrne, B. (2018). Neural machine translation decoding with terminology constraints. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 506-512, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Hokamp, C. and Liu, Q. (2017). Lexically constrained decoding for sequence generation using grid beam search. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1535-1546, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  13. Hu, J. E., Khayrallah, H., Culkin, R., Xia, P., Chen, T., Post, M., and Van Durme, B. (2019a). Improved lexically constrained decoding for translation and monolingual rewriting. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 839-850, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  14. Jon, J., Aires, J. P., Varis, D., and Bojar, O. (2021). End-to-end lexically constrained machine translation for morphologically rich languages. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confer- ence on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4019-4033, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  15. Junczys-Dowmunt, M., Grundkiewicz, R., Dwojak, T., Hoang, H., Heafield, K., Neckermann, T., Seide, F., Germann, U., Aji, A. F., Bogoychev, N., Martins, A. F. T., and Birch, A. (2018). Marian: Fast neural machine translation in C++. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 116-121, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  16. Kajiwara, T. (2019). Negative lexically constrained decoding for paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6047-6052, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Kepler, F., Trénous, J., Treviso, M., Vera, M., and Martins, A. F. T. (2019). OpenKiwi: An open source framework for quality estimation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 117-122, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  18. Knowles, R. and Koehn, P. (2016). Neural interactive translation prediction. In Conferences of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: MT Researchers' Track, pages 107-120, Austin, TX, USA. The Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.
  19. Kocmi, T., Popel, M., and Bojar, O. (2020). Announcing czeng 2.0 parallel corpus with over 2 gigawords. CoRR, abs/2007.03006. · arXiv
  20. Kudo, T. and Richardson, J. (2018). SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Li, X., Yan, J., Zhang, J., and Zong, C. (2019). Neural name translation improves neural machine translation. In Chen, J. and Zhang, J., editors, Machine Translation, pages 93-100. Springer Singapore.
  22. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.-J. (2002). Bleu: a method for automatic evalua- tion of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  23. Post, M. (2018). A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. Post, M. and Vilar, D. (2018). Fast lexically constrained decoding with dynamic beam allo- cation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1314-1324, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Rei, R., Stewart, C., Farinha, A. C., and Lavie, A. (2020). COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  26. Song, K., Zhang, Y., Yu, H., Luo, W., Wang, K., and Zhang, M. (2019). Code-switching for enhancing NMT with pre-specified translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 449-459, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  27. Straka, M. and Straková, J. (2017). Tokenizing, POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe. In Proceedings of the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies, pages 88-99, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  28. Yan, J., Zhang, J., Xu, J., and Zong, C. (2019). The impact of named entity translation for neural machine translation. In Chen, J. and Zhang, J., editors, Machine Translation, pages 63-73. Springer Singapore.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jon, J., Variš, D., Novák, M., Aires, J. P., & Bojar, O.
Affiliations
Charles University (CZ)
ORCID
Variš, Dušan
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.03601
arXiv
2308.03601
OpenAlex
W7021150151
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Univerzita Karlova v Praze
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 825303)
  • Grantová Agentura České Republiky (GX19-26934X)
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, English-Czech translation, paraphrase, stemming

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