Advertisement

A Space-Efficient Phrase Table Implementation Using Minimal Perfect Hash Functions

  • Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7499)

Abstract

We describe the structure of a space-efficient phrase table for phrase-based statistical machine translation with the Moses decoder. The new phrase table can be used in-memory or be partially mapped on-disk. Compared to the standard Moses on-disk phrase table implementation a size reduction by a factor of 6 is achieved.

The focus of this work lies on the source phrase index which is implemented using minimal perfect hash functions. Two methods are discussed that reduce the memory consumption of a baseline implementation.

Keywords

Statistical machine translation compact phrase table minimal perfect hash function Moses 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koehn, P., Hoang, H., Birch, A., Callison-Burch, C., Federico, M., Bertoldi, N., Cowan, B., Shen, W., Moran, C., Zens, R., Dyer, C., Bojar, O., Constantin, A., Herbst, E.: Moses: Open Source Toolkit for Statistical Machine Translation. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). The Association for Computer Linguistics, Prague (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Junczys-Dowmunt, M.: A Phrase Table without Phrases: Rank Encoding for Better Phrase Table Compression. In: Proc. of the 16th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT), pp. 241–252 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zens, R., Ney, H.: Efficient Phrase-table Representation for Machine Translation with Applications to Online MT and Speech Translation. In: Proc. of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levenberg, A., Callison-Burch, C., Osborne, M.: Stream-based Translation Models for Statistical Machine Translation. In: Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 394–402 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, J.H., Martin, J., Fost, G., Kuhn, R.: Improving translation quality by discarding most of the phrasetable. In: Proc. of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, pp. 967–975 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talbot, D., Brants, T.: Randomized Language Models via Perfect Hash Functions. In: Proc. of ACL 2008: HLT, pp. 505–513. Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guthrie, D., Hepple, M., Liu, W.: Efficient Minimal Perfect Hash Language Models. In: Proc. of the 7th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pouliquen, B., Mazenc, C.: COPPA, CLIR and TAPTA: three tools to assist in overcoming the language barrier at WIPO. In: MT-Summit 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belazzougui, D., Botelho, F.C., Dietzfelbinger, M.: Hash, Displace, and Compress. In: Fiat, A., Sanders, P. (eds.) ESA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5757, pp. 682–693. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations