Encoding Source Language with Convolutional Neural Network
for Machine Translation

arXiv:1503.01838v5 [cs.CL] 8 Jun 2015

Fandong Meng1 Zhengdong Lu2 Mingxuan Wang1 Hang Li2 Wenbin Jiang1 Qun Liu3,1
1
Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
{mengfandong,wangmingxuan,jiangwenbin,liuqun}@ict.ac.cn
2
Noah’s Ark Lab, Huawei Technologies
{Lu.Zhengdong,HangLi.HL}@huawei.com
3
ADAPT Centre, School of Computing, Dublin City University
Abstract
The recently proposed neural network joint model (NNJM) (Devlin et al., 2014) augments the
n-gram target language model with a heuristically chosen source context window, achieving
state-of-the-art performance in SMT. In this paper, we give a more systematic treatment by
summarizing the relevant source information through a convolutional architecture guided by
the target information. With different guiding signals during decoding, our specifically designed convolution+gating architectures can pinpoint the parts of a source sentence that are
relevant to predicting a target word, and fuse them with the context of entire source sentence
to form a unified representation. This representation, together with target language words, are
fed to a deep neural network (DNN) to form a stronger NNJM. Experiments on two NIST
Chinese-English translation tasks show that the proposed model can achieve significant improvements over the previous NNJM by up to +1.08 BLEU points on average.

1

Introduction

Learning of continuous space representation for source language has attracted much attention in both
traditional statistical machine translation (SMT) and neural machine translation (NMT). Various models, mostly neural network-based, have been proposed for representing the source sentence, mainly
as the encoder part in an encoder-decoder framework (Bengio et al., 2003; Auli et al., 2013; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013; Cho et al., 2014; Sutskever et al., 2014). There has been some quite
recent work on encoding only “relevant” part of source sentence during the decoding process, most
notably neural network joint model (NNJM) in (Devlin et al., 2014), which extends the n-grams target
language model by additionally taking a fixed-length window of source sentence, achieving state-ofthe-art performance in statistical machine translation.
In this paper, we propose novel convolutional architectures to dynamically encode the relevant
information in the source language. Our model covers the entire source sentence, but can effectively
find and properly summarize the relevant parts, guided by the information from the target language.
With the guiding signals during decoding, our specifically designed convolution architectures can
pinpoint the parts of a source sentence that are relevant to predicting a target word, and fuse them with
the context of entire source sentence to form a unified representation. This representation, together
with target words, are fed to a deep neural network (DNN) to form a stronger NNJM. Since our
proposed joint model is purely lexicalized, it can be integrated into any SMT decoder as a feature.
Two variants of the joint model are also proposed, with coined name tagCNN and inCNN, with
different guiding signals used from the decoding process. We integrate the proposed joint models
into a state-of-the-art dependency-to-string translation system (Xie et al., 2011) to evaluate their effectiveness. Experiments on NIST Chinese-English translation tasks show that our model is able to

(a) tagCNN

(b) inCNN

Figure 1: Illustration for joint LM based on CNN encoder.

achieve significant improvements of +2.0 BLEU points on average over the baseline. Our model also
outperforms Devlin et al. (2014)’s NNJM by up to +1.08 BLEU points.
RoadMap: In the remainder of this paper, we start with a brief overview of joint language model
in Section 2, while the convolutional encoders, as the key component of which, will be described in
detail in Section 3. Then in Section 4 we discuss the decoding algorithm with the proposed models.
The experiment results are reported in Section 5, followed by Section 6 and 7 for related work and
conclusion.

2

Joint Language Model

Our joint model with CNN encoders can be illustrated in Figure 1 (a) & (b), which consists 1) a CNN
encoder, namely tagCNN or inCNN, to represent the information in the source sentences, and 2)
an NN-based model for predicting the next words, with representations from CNN encoders and the
history words in target sentence as inputs.
In the joint language model, the probability of the target word en , given previous k target words
{en−k , · · ·, en−1 } and the representations from CNN-encoders for source sentence S are
n−1
tagCNN: p(en |φ1 (S, {a(en )}), {e}n−k
)

inCNN:

n−1
n−1
p(en | φ2 (S, h({e}n−k
)), {e}n−k
),

where φ1 (S, {a(en )}) stands for the representation given by tagCNN with the set of indexes {a(en )}
of source words aligned to the target word en , and φ2 (S, h({e}n−1
n−k )) stands for the representation
n−1
from inCNN with the attention signal h({e}n−k ).
Let us use the example in Figure 1, where the task is to translate the Chinese sentence

into English.
In evaluating a target language sequence “holds parliament and
presidential”, with “holds parliament and” as the proceeding words (assume 4-gram

LM), and the affiliated source word1 of “presidential” being “Zǒngtǒng” (determined by
word alignment), tagCNN generates φ1 (S, {4}) (the index of “Zǒngtǒng” is 4), and inCNN
generates φ2 (S, h(holds parliament and)). The DNN component then takes "holds
parliament and" and (φ1 or φ2 ) as input to give the conditional probability for next word, e.g.,
p("presidential"|φ1|2 , {holds, parliament, and}).

3

Convolutional Models

We start with the generic architecture for convolutional encoder, and then proceed to tagCNN and
inCNN as two extensions.
3.1

Generic CNN Encoder

The basic architecture is of a generic CNN encoder is illustrated in Figure 2 (a), which has a fixed
architecture consisting of six layers:
Layer-0: the input layer, which takes words in the form of embedding vectors. In our work, we set the
maximum length of sentences to 40 words. For sentences shorter than that, we put zero padding
at the beginning of sentences.
Layer-1: a convolution layer after Layer-0, with window size = 3. As will be discussed in Section 3.2
and 3.3, the guiding signal are injected into this layer for “guided version”.
Layer-2: a local gating layer after Layer-1, which simply takes a weighted sum over feature-maps in
non-adjacent window with size = 2.
Layer-3: a convolution layer after Layer-2, we perform another convolution with window size = 3.
Layer-4: we perform a global gating over feature-maps on Layer-3.
Layer-5: fully connected weights that maps the output of Layer-4 to this layer as the final representation.
3.1.1 Convolution
As shown in Figure 2 (a), the convolution in Layer-1 operates on sliding windows of words (width k1 ),
and the similar definition of windows carries over to higher layers. Formally, for source sentence input
x={x1 , · · · , xN }, the convolution unit for feature map of type-f (among F` of them) on Layer-` is
(`,f )

zi

(x)

=

(`−1)

σ(w(`,f ) ẑi

+ b(`,f ) ),

`

=

1, 3,

f

=

1, 2, · · · , F` (1)

where
(`,f )

• zi

(x) gives the output of feature map of type-f for location i in Layer-`;

• w(`,f ) is the parameters for f on Layer-`;
• σ(·) is the Sigmoid activation function;
(`−1)

• ẑi

denotes the segment of Layer-`−1 for the convolution at location i , while
(0) def

ẑi

>
> >
= [x>
i , xi+1 , xi+2 ]

concatenates the vectors for 3 words from sentence input x.
1

For an aligned target word, we take its aligned source words as its affiliated source words. And for an unaligned word,
we inherit its affiliation from the closest aligned word, with preference given to the right (Devlin et al., 2014). Since the
word alignment is of many-to-many, one target word may has multi affiliated source words.

Figure 2: Illustration for the CNN encoders.

3.1.2 Gating
Previous CNNs, including those for NLP tasks (Hu et al., 2014; Kalchbrenner et al., 2014), take
a straightforward convolution-pooling strategy, in which the “fusion” decisions (e.g., selecting the
largest one in max-pooling) are based on the values of feature-maps. This is essentially a soft template matching, which works for tasks like classification, but harmful for keeping the composition
functionality of convolution, which is critical for modeling sentences. In this paper, we propose to
use separate gating unit to release the score function duty from the convolution, and let it focus on
composition.
We take two types of gating: 1) for Layer-2, we take a local gating with non-overlapping windows
(size = 2) on the feature-maps of convolutional Layer-1 for representation of segments, and 2) for
Layer-4, we take a global gating to fuse all the segments for a global representation. We found that
this gating strategy can considerably improve the performance of both tagCNN and inCNN over
pooling.
• Local Gating: On Layer-1, for every gating window, we first find its original input (before
convolution) on Layer-0, and merge them for the input of the gating network. For example,
for the two windows: word (3,4,5) and word (4,5,6) on Layer-0, we use concatenated vector
consisting of embedding for word (3,4,5,6) as the input of the local gating network (a logistic
regression model) to determine the weight for the convolution result of the two windows (on
Layer-1), and the weighted sum are the output of Layer-2.
(3)

• Global Gating: On Layer-3, for feature-maps at each location i, denoted zi , the global gating
network (essentially soft-max, parameterized wg ), assigns a normalized weight
(3)

> (3)

ω(zi ) = ewg zi /

X

> (3)

ewg zj ,

j

and the gated representation on Layer-4 is given by the weighted sum

P

(3) (3)
i ω(zi )zi .

3.1.3 Training of CNN encoders
The CNN encoders, including tagCNN and inCNN that will be discussed right below, are trained in
a joint language model described in Section 2, along with the following parameters
• the embedding of the words on source and the proceeding words on target;

• the parameters for the DNN of joint language model, include the parameters of soft-max for word
probability.
The training procedure is identical to that of neural network language model, except that the parallel
corpus is used instead of a monolingual corpus. We seek to maximize the log-likelihood of training
samples, with one sample for every target word in the parallel corpus. Optimization is performed with
the conventional back-propagation, implemented as stochastic gradient descent (LeCun et al., 1998)
with mini-batches.
3.2

tagCNN

tagCNN inherits the convolution and gating from generic CNN (as described in Section 3.1), with the
only modification in the input layer. As shown in Figure 2 (b), in tagCNN, we append an extra tagging
bit (0 or 1) to the embedding of words in the input layer to indicate whether it is one of affiliated words
(A FF)

xi

>
= [x>
i 1] ,

(NON -A FF)

xj

>
= [x>
j 0] .

Those extended word embedding will then be treated as regular word-embedding in the convolutional
neural network. This particular encoding strategy can be extended to embed more complicated dependency relation in source language, as will be described in Section 5.4.
This particular “tag” will be activated in a parameterized way during the training for predicting the
target words. In other words, the supervised signal from the words to predict will find, through layers
of back-propagation, the importance of the tag bit in the “affiliated words” in the source language,
and learn to put proper weight on it to make tagged words stand out and adjust other parameters in
tagCNN accordingly for the optimal predictive performance. In doing so, the joint model can pinpoint
the parts of a source sentence that are relevant to predicting a target word through the already learned
word alignment.
3.3

inCNN

Unlike tagCNN, which directly tells the location of affiliated words to the CNN encoder, inCNN
sends the information about the proceeding words in target side to the convolutional encoder to help
retrieve the information relevant for predicting the next word. This is essentially a particular case of
attention model, analogous to the automatic alignment mechanism in (Bahdanau et al., 2014), where
the attention signal is from the state of a generative recurrent neural network (RNN) as decoder.
Basically, the information from proceeding words, denoted as h({e}n−1
n−k ), is injected into every
convolution window in the source language sentence, as illustrated in Figure 2 (c). More specifically,
for the window indexed by t, the input to convolution is given by the concatenated vector
n−1
>
> >
ẑt = [h({e}n−k
), x>
t , xt+1 , xt+2 ] .

In this work, we use a DNN to transform the vector concatenated from word-embedding for words
{en−k · · · , en−k } into h({e}n−1
n−k ), with sigmoid activation function. Through layers of convolution
and gating, inCNN can 1) retrieve the relevant segments of source sentences, and 2) compose and
transform the retrieved segments into representation recognizable by the DNN in predicting the words
in target language. Different from that of tagCNN, inCNN uses information from proceeding words,
hence provides complementary information in the augmented joint language model of tagCNN. This
has been empirically verified when using feature based on tagCNN and that based on inCNN in
decoding with greater improvement.

Figure 3: Illustration for a dependency tree (a) with three head-dependents relations in shadow, an
example of head-dependents relation rule (b) for the top level of (a), and an example of head rule (c).
“X1 :NN” indicates a substitution site that can be replaced by a subtree whose root has part-of-speech
“NN”. The underline denotes a leaf node.

4

Decoding with the Joint Model

Our joint model is purely lexicalized, and therefore can be integrated into any SMT decoders as a
feature. For a hierarchical SMT decoder, we adopt the integrating method proposed by Devlin et
al. (2014). As inherited from the n-gram language model for performing hierarchical decoding, the
leftmost and rightmost n − 1 words from each constituent should be stored in the state space. We
extend the state space to also include the indexes of the affiliated source words for each of these edge
words. For an aligned target word, we take its aligned source words as its affiliated source words.
And for an unaligned word, we use the affiliation heuristic adopted by Devlin et al. (2014). In this
paper, we integrate the joint model into the state-of-the-art dependency-to-string machine translation
decoder as a case study to test the efficacy of our proposed approaches. We will briefly describe the
dependency-to-string translation model and then the description of MT system.
4.1

Dependency-to-String Translation

In this paper, we use a state-of-the-art dependency-to-string (Xie et al., 2011) decoder (Dep2Str),
which is also a hierarchical decoder. This dependency-to-string model employs rules that represent
the source side as head-dependents relations and the target side as strings. A head-dependents relation
(HDR) is composed of a head and all its dependents in dependency trees. Figure 3 shows a dependency
tree (a) with three HDRs (in shadow), an example of HDR rule (b) for the top level of (a), and an
example of head rule (c). HDR rules are constructed from head-dependents relations. HDR rules can
act as both translation rules and reordering rules. And head rules are used for translating source words.
We adopt the decoder proposed by Meng et al. (2013) as a variant of Dep2Str translation that
is easier to implement with comparable performance. Basically they extract the HDR rules with
GHKM (Galley et al., 2004) algorithm. For the decoding procedure, given a source dependency tree
T , the decoder transverses T in post-order. The bottom-up chart-based decoding algorithm with cube
pruning (Chiang, 2007; Huang and Chiang, 2007) is used to find the k-best items for each node.

4.2

MT Decoder

Following Och and Ney (2002), we use a general loglinear framework. Let d be a derivation that
convert a source dependency tree into a target string e. The probability of d is defined as:
Y
P (d) ∝
φi (d)λi
(2)
i

where φi are features defined on derivations and λi are the corresponding weights. Our decoder
contains the following features:
Baseline Features:
• translation probabilities P (t|s) and P (s|t) of HDR rules;
• lexical translation probabilities PLEX (t|s) and PLEX (s|t) of HDR rules;
• rule penalty exp(−1);
• pseudo translation rule penalty exp(−1);
• target word penalty exp(|e|);
• n-gram language model PLM (e);
Proposed Features:
• n-gram tagCNN joint language model PTLM (e);
• n-gram inCNN joint language model PILM (e).
Our baseline decoder contains the first eight features. The pseudo translation rule (constructed according to the word order of a HDR) is to ensure the complete translation when no matched rules is
found during decoding. The weights of all these features are tuned via minimum error rate training
(MERT) (Och, 2003). For the dependency-to-string decoder, we set rule-threshold and stack-threshold
to 10−3 , rule-limit to 100, stack-limit to 200.

5

Experiments

The experiments in this Section are designed to answer the following questions:
1. Are our tagCNN and inCNN joint language models able to improve translation quality, and are
they complementary to each other?
2. Do inCNN and tagCNN benefit from their guiding signal, compared to a generic CNN?
3. For tagCNN, is it helpful to embed more dependency structure, e.g., dependency head of each
affiliated word, as additional information?
4. Can our gating strategy improve the performance over max-pooling?
5.1

Setup

Data: Our training data are extracted from LDC data2 . We only keep the sentence pairs that the
length of source part no longer than 40 words, which covers over 90% of the sentence. The bilingual
training data consist of 221K sentence pairs, containing 5.0 million Chinese words and 6.8 million
English words. The development set is NIST MT03 (795 sentences) and test sets are MT04 (1499
sentences) and MT05 (917 sentences) after filtering with length limit.
2

The corpora include LDC2002E18, LDC2003E07, LDC2003E14, LDC2004T07, LDC2005T06.

Preprocessing: The word alignments are obtained with GIZA++ (Och and Ney, 2003) on the corpora in both directions, using the “grow-diag-final-and” balance strategy (Koehn et al., 2003). We
adopt SRI Language Modeling Toolkit (Stolcke and others, 2002) to train a 4-gram language model
with modified Kneser-Ney smoothing on the Xinhua portion of the English Gigaword corpus (306
million words). We parse the Chinese sentences with Stanford Parser into projective dependency
trees.
Optimization of NN: In training the neural network, we limit the source and target vocabulary to
the most frequent 20K words for both Chinese and English, covering approximately 97% and 99%
of two corpus respectively. All the out-of-vocabulary words are mapped to a special token UNK. We
used stochastic gradient descent to train the joint model, setting the size of minibatch to 500. All joint
models used a 3-word target history (i.e., 4-gram LM). The dimension of word embedding and the
attention signal h({e}n−1
n−k ) for inCNN are 100. For the convolution layers (Layer 1 and Layer 3), we
apply 100 filters. And the final representation of CNN encoders is a vector with dimension 100. The
final DNN layer of our joint model is the standard multi-layer perceptron with softmax at the top layer.
Metric: We use the case-insensitive 4-gram NIST BLEU3 as our evaluation metric, with statistical
significance test with sign-test (Collins et al., 2005) between the proposed models and two baselines.
5.2

Setting for Model Comparisons

We use the tagCNN and inCNN joint language models as additional decoding features to a
dependency-to-string baseline system (Dep2Str), and compare them to the neural network joint model
with 11 source context words (Devlin et al., 2014). We use the implementation of an open source
toolkit4 with default configuration except the global settings described in Section 5.1. Since our
tagCNN and inCNN models are source-to-target and left-to-right (on target side), we only take the
source-to-target and left-to-right type NNJM in (Devlin et al., 2014) in comparison. We call this type
NNJM as BBN-JM hereafter. Although the BBN-JM in (Devlin et al., 2014) is originally tested in the
hierarchical phrase-based (Chiang, 2007) SMT and string-to-dependency (Shen et al., 2008) SMT, it
is fairly versatile and can be readily integrated into Dep2Str.
5.3

The Main Results

The main results of different models are given in Table 1. Before proceeding to more detailed comparison, we first observe that
• the baseline Dep2Str system gives BLEU 0.5+ higher than the open-source phrase-based system
Moses (Koehn et al., 2007);
• BBN-JM can give about +0.92 BLEU score over Dep2Str, a result similar as reported in (Devlin
et al., 2014).
Clearly from Table 1, tagCNN and inCNN improve upon the Dep2Str baseline by +1.28 and +1.75
BLEU, outperforming BBN-JM in the same setting by respectively +0.36 and +0.83 BLEU, averaged
on NIST MT04 and MT05. These indicate that tagCNN and inCNN can individually provide discriminative information in decoding. It is worth noting that inCNN appears to be more informative
than the affiliated words suggested by the word alignment (GIZA++). We conjecture that this is due
to the following two facts
3
4

ftp://jaguar.ncsl.nist.gov/mt/resources/mteval-v11b.pl
http://nlg.isi.edu/software/nplm/

Systems
Moses
Dep2Str
+ BBN-JM (Devlin et al., 2014)
+ CNN (generic)
+ tagCNN
+ inCNN
+ tagCNN + inCNN

MT04
34.33
34.89
36.11
36.12*
36.33*
36.92*
36.94*

MT05
31.75
32.24
32.86
33.07*
33.37*
33.72*
34.20*

Average
33.04
33.57
34.49
34.60
34.85
35.32
35.57

Table 1: BLEU-4 scores (%) on NIST MT04-test and MT05-test, of Moses (default settings),
dependency-to-string baseline system (Dep2Str), and different features on top of Dep2Str: neural
network joint model (BBN-JM), generic CNN, tagCNN, inCNN and the combination of tagCNN
and inCNN. The boldface numbers and superscript ∗ indicate that the results are significantly better
(p<0.01) than those of the BBN-JM and the Dep2Str baseline respectively. “+” stands for adding the
corresponding feature to Dep2Str.
• inCNN avoids the propagation of mistakes and artifacts in the already learned word alignment;
• the guiding signal in inCNN provides complementary information to evaluate the translation.
Moreover, when tagCNN and inCNN are both used in decoding, it can further increase its winning
margin over BBN-JM to +1.08 BLEU points (in the last row of Table 1), indicating that the two models
with different guiding signals are complementary to each other.
The Role of Guiding Signal It is slight surprising that the generic CNN can also achieve the gain
on BLEU similar to that of BBN-JM, since intuitively generic CNN encodes the entire sentence and
the representations should in general far from optimal representation for joint language model. The
reason, as we conjecture, is CNN yields fairly informative summarization of the sentence (thanks to
its sophisticated convolution and gating architecture), which makes up some of its loss on resolution
and relevant parts of the source senescence. That said, the guiding signal in both tagCNN and inCNN
are crucial to the power of CNN-based encoder, as can be easily seen from the difference between
the BLEU scores achieved by generic CNN, tagCNN, and inCNN. Indeed, with the signal from the
already learned word alignment, tagCNN can gain +0.25 BLEU over its generic counterpart, while
for inCNN with the guiding signal from the proceeding words in target, the gain is more saliently
+0.72 BLEU.
5.4

Dependency Head in tagCNN

In this section, we study whether tagCNN can further benefit from encoding richer dependency structure in source language in the input. More specifically, the dependency head words can be used to
further improve tagCNN model. As described in Section 3.2, in tagCNN, we append a tagging bit
(0 or 1) to the embedding of words in the input layer as tags on whether they are affiliated source
words. To incorporate dependency head information, we extend the tagging rule in Section 3.2 to
add another tagging bit (0 or 1) to the word-embedding for original tagCNN to indicate whether it is
part of dependency heads of the affiliated words. For example, if xi is the embedding of an affiliated
source word and xj the dependency head of word xi , the extended input of tagCNN would contain
(A FF, NON -H EAD)

>
= [x>
i 1 0]

(NON -A FF, H EAD)

>
= [x>
j 0 1]

xi

xj

Systems
Dep2str
+tagCNN
+tagCNN dep

MT04
34.89
36.33
36.54

MT05
32.24
33.37
33.61

Average
33.57
34.85
35.08

Table 2: BLEU-4 scores (%) of tagCNN model with dependency head words as additional tags
(tagCNN dep).
Systems
Dep2Str
+inCNN
+inCNN-2-pooling
+inCNN-4-pooling
+inCNN-8-pooling

MT04
34.89
36.92
36.33
36.46
36.57

MT05
32.24
33.72
32.88
33.01
33.39

Average
33.57
35.32
34.61
34.74
34.98

Table 3: BLEU-4 scores (%) of inCNN models implemented with gating strategy and k max-pooling,
where k is of {2, 4, 8}.
If the affiliated source word is the root of a sentence, we only append 0 as the second tagging bit since
the root has no dependency head. From Table 2, with the help of dependency head information, we
can improve tagCNN by +0.23 BLEU points averagely on two test sets.
5.5

Gating Vs. Max-pooling

In this section, we investigate to what extent that our gating strategy can improve the translation
performance over max pooling, with the comparisons on inCNN model as a case study. For implementation of inCNN with max-pooling, we replace the local-gating (Layer-2) with max-pooling with
size 2 (2-pooling for short), and global gating (Layer-4) with k max-pooling (“k-pooling”), where k
is of {2, 4, 8}. Then, we use the mean of the outputs of k-pooling as the final input of Layer-5. In
doing so, we can guarantee the input dimension of Layer-5 is the same as the architecture with gating.
From Table 3, we can clearly see that our gating strategy can improve translation performance over
max-pooling by 0.34∼0.71 BLEU points. Moreover, we find 8-pooling yields performance better
than 2-pooling. We conjecture that this is because the useful relevant parts for translation are mainly
concentrated on a few words of the source sentence, which can be better extracted with a larger pool
size.

6

Related Work

The seminal work of neural network language model (NNLM) can be traced to Bengio et al. (2003)
on monolingual text. It is recently extended by Devlin et al. (2014) to include additional source
context (11 source words) in modeling the target sentence, which is clearly most related to our work,
with however two important differences: 1) instead of the ad hoc way of selecting a context window
in (Devlin et al., 2014), our model covers the entire source sentence and automatically distill the
context relevant for target modeling; 2) our convolutional architecture can effectively leverage guiding
signals of vastly different forms and nature from the target.
Prior to our model there is also work on representing source sentences with neural networks,
including RNN (Cho et al., 2014; Sutskever et al., 2014) and CNN (Kalchbrenner and Blunsom,
2013). These work typically aim to map the entire sentence to a vector, which will be used later by
RNN/LSTM-based decoder to generate the target sentence. As demonstrated in Section 5, the rep-

resentation learnt this way cannot pinpoint the relevant parts of the source sentences (e.g., words or
phrases level) and therefore is inferior to be directly integrated into traditional SMT decoders.
Our model, especially inCNN, is inspired by is the automatic alignment model proposed in (Bahdanau et al., 2014). As the first effort to apply attention model to machine translation, it sends the state
of a decoding RNN as attentional signal to the source end to obtain a weighted sum of embedding of
source words as the summary of relevant context. In contrast, inCNN uses 1) a different attention signal extracted from proceeding words in partial translations, and 2) more importantly, a convolutional
architecture and therefore a highly nonlinear way to retrieve and summarize the relevant information
in source.

7

Conclusion and Future Work

We proposed convolutional architectures for obtaining a guided representation of the entire source
sentence, which can be used to augment the n-gram target language model. With different guiding
signals from target side, we devise tagCNN and inCNN, both of which are tested in enhancing a
dependency-to-string SMT with +2.0 BLEU points over baseline and +1.08 BLEU points over the
state-of-the-art in (Devlin et al., 2014). For future work, we will consider encoding more complex
linguistic structures to further enhance the joint model.

References
[Auli et al.2013] Michael Auli, Michel Galley, Chris Quirk, and Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. Joint language and
translation modeling with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1044–1054, Seattle, Washington, USA, October.
[Bahdanau et al.2014] Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473.
[Bengio et al.2003] Yoshua Bengio, Rjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Jauvin. 2003. A neural
probabilistic language model. Journal OF Machine Learning Research, 3:1137–1155.
[Chiang2007] David Chiang.
33(2):201–228.

2007.

Hierarchical phrase-based translation.

Computational Linguistics,

[Cho et al.2014] Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares,
Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder–decoder
for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural
Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1724–1734, Doha, Qatar, October.
[Collins et al.2005] Michael Collins, Philipp Koehn, and Ivona Kučerová. 2005. Clause restructuring for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational
Linguistics, pages 531–540.
[Devlin et al.2014] Jacob Devlin, Rabih Zbib, Zhongqiang Huang, Thomas Lamar, Richard Schwartz, and John
Makhoul. 2014. Fast and robust neural network joint models for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers),
pages 1370–1380, Baltimore, Maryland, June.
[Galley et al.2004] Michel Galley, Mark Hopkins, Kevin Knight, and Daniel Marcu. 2004. What’s in a translation rule. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL, volume 4, pages 273–280. Boston.
[Hu et al.2014] Baotian Hu, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Qingcai Chen. 2014. Convolutional neural network
architectures for matching natural language sentences. In NIPS.

[Huang and Chiang2007] Liang Huang and David Chiang. 2007. Forest rescoring: Faster decoding with integrated language models. In Annual Meeting-Association For Computational Linguistics, volume 45, pages
144–151.
[Kalchbrenner and Blunsom2013] Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent continuous translation
models. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,
pages 1700–1709, Seattle, Washington, USA, October.
[Kalchbrenner et al.2014] Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional
neural network for modelling sentences. ACL.
[Koehn et al.2003] Philipp Koehn, Franz Josef Och, and Daniel Marcu. 2003. Statistical phrase-based translation. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology-Volume 1, pages 48–54.
[Koehn et al.2007] Philipp Koehn, Hieu Hoang, Alexandra Birch, Chris Callison-Burch, Marcello Federico,
Nicola Bertoldi, Brooke Cowan, Wade Shen, Christine Moran, Richard Zens, Chris Dyer, Ondrej Bojar,
Alexandra Constantin, and Evan Herbst. 2007. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Companion Volume Proceedings of the Demo and Poster Sessions, pages 177–180, Prague, Czech Republic, June.
[LeCun et al.1998] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. Orr, and K. Muller. 1998. Efficient backprop. In Neural Networks:
Tricks of the trade. Springer.
[Meng et al.2013] Fandong Meng, Jun Xie, Linfeng Song, Yajuan Lü, and Qun Liu. 2013. Translation with
source constituency and dependency trees. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing, pages 1066–1076, Seattle, Washington, USA, October.
[Och and Ney2002] Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2002. Discriminative training and maximum entropy
models for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for
Computational Linguistics, pages 295–302.
[Och and Ney2003] Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical
alignment models. Computational linguistics, 29(1):19–51.
[Och2003] Franz Josef Och. 2003. Minimum error rate training in statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics-Volume 1, pages 160–167.
[Shen et al.2008] Libin Shen, Jinxi Xu, and Ralph Weischedel. 2008. A new string-to-dependency machine
translation algorithm with a target dependency language model. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages
577–585.
[Stolcke and others2002] Andreas Stolcke et al. 2002. Srilm-an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proceedings of the international conference on spoken language processing, volume 2, pages 901–904.
[Sutskever et al.2014] Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with
neural networks. CoRR, abs/1409.3215.
[Xie et al.2011] Jun Xie, Haitao Mi, and Qun Liu. 2011. A novel dependency-to-string model for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,
pages 216–226.

