Why don't people use character-level machine translation?

17Citations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We present a literature and empirical survey that critically assesses the state of the art in character-level modeling for machine translation (MT). Despite evidence in the literature that character-level systems are comparable with subword systems, they are virtually never used in competitive setups in WMT competitions. We empirically show that even with recent modeling innovations in character-level natural language processing, character-level MT systems still struggle to match their subword-based counterparts. Character-level MT systems show neither better domain robustness, nor better morphological generalization, despite being often so motivated. However, we are able to show robustness towards source side noise and that translation quality does not degrade with increasing beam size at decoding time.

References Powered by Scopus

Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units

4457Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing

2077Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores

1978Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Subword Segmental Machine Translation: Unifying Segmentation and Target Sentence Generation

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Byte-Level Grammatical Error Correction Using Synthetic and Curated Corpora

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

ByGPT5: End-to-End Style-conditioned Poetry Generation with Token-free Language Models

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Libovický, J., Schmid, H., & Fraser, A. (2022). Why don’t people use character-level machine translation? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2470–2485). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.194

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 14

64%

Researcher 5

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 15

63%

Linguistics 5

21%

Engineering 2

8%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free