case study translation in malayalam

അതിവേഗ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് → മലയാളം ← മലയാളം നിഘണ്ടു

• ഒരു വ്യക്തിയെ അല്ലെങ്കിൽ സംഘത്തെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള വിശദമായ അന്വേഷണം

അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളും നിർദ്ദേശങ്ങളും രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുക

അവലോകനത്തിനായി സമർപ്പിക്കുക പൂട്ടുക

A case study on English-Malayalam Machine Translation

In this paper we present our work on a case study on Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) and Rule based machine translation (RBMT) for translation from English to Malayalam and Malayalam to English. One of the motivations of our study is to make a three way performance comparison, such as, a) SMT and RBMT b) English to Malayalam SMT and Malayalam to English SMT c) English to Malayalam RBMT and Malayalam to English RBMT. We describe the development of English to Malayalam and Malayalam to English baseline phrase based SMT system and the evaluation of its performance compared against the RBMT system. Based on our study the observations are: a) SMT systems outperform RBMT systems, b) In the case of SMT, English - Malayalam systems perform better than that of Malayalam - English systems, c) In the case RBMT, Malayalam to English systems are performing better than English to Malayalam systems. Based on our evaluations and detailed error analysis, we describe the requirements of incorporating morphological processing into the SMT to improve the accuracy of translation.

Sreelekha S

Pushpak Bhattacharyya

Related Research

Statistical vs rule based machine translation; a case study on indian language perspective, does syntactic knowledge help english-hindi smt, english-bhojpuri smt system: insights from the karaka model, story generation from sequence of independent short descriptions, comparison of smt and rbmt; the requirement of hybridization for marathi-hindi mt, neural versus phrase-based machine translation quality: a case study, translating the unseen yorùbá → english mt in low-resource, morphologically-unmarked settings.

Please sign up or login with your details

Generation Overview

AI Generator calls

AI Video Generator calls

AI Chat messages

Genius Mode messages

Genius Mode images

AD-free experience

Private images

• Includes 500 AI Image generations, 1750 AI Chat Messages, 30 AI Video generations, 60 Genius Mode Messages and 60 Genius Mode Images per month. If you go over any of these limits, you will be charged an extra $5 for that group.
• For example: if you go over 500 AI images, but stay within the limits for AI Chat and Genius Mode, you'll be charged $5 per additional 500 AI Image generations.
• Includes 100 AI Image generations and 300 AI Chat Messages. If you go over any of these limits, you will have to pay as you go.
• For example: if you go over 100 AI images, but stay within the limits for AI Chat, you'll have to reload on credits to generate more images. Choose from $5 - $1000. You'll only pay for what you use.

Out of credits

Refill your membership to continue using DeepAI

Share your generations with friends

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row.

• MACHINE TRANSLATION
• TRANSLATION

Remove a task

Add a method

Remove a method, edit datasets, a case study on english-malayalam machine translation.

27 Feb 2017  ·  Sreelekha. S , Pushpak Bhattacharyya · Edit social preview

In this paper we present our work on a case study on Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) and Rule based machine translation (RBMT) for translation from English to Malayalam and Malayalam to English. One of the motivations of our study is to make a three way performance comparison, such as, a) SMT and RBMT b) English to Malayalam SMT and Malayalam to English SMT c) English to Malayalam RBMT and Malayalam to English RBMT. We describe the development of English to Malayalam and Malayalam to English baseline phrase based SMT system and the evaluation of its performance compared against the RBMT system. Based on our study the observations are: a) SMT systems outperform RBMT systems, b) In the case of SMT, English - Malayalam systems perform better than that of Malayalam - English systems, c) In the case RBMT, Malayalam to English systems are performing better than English to Malayalam systems. Based on our evaluations and detailed error analysis, we describe the requirements of incorporating morphological processing into the SMT to improve the accuracy of translation.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit add remove, methods edit add remove.

Cloud Enablement

Cloud Consulting

Cloud-Native Apps

Cloud Migration Strategies

Cloud Migration Services

Cloud Monitoring

Cloud Security Posture

Cloud Cost Optimization

Private Cloud

ChatGPT Integration

Data Science

Artificial Intelligence

Data Engineering

Generative AI Development

Big Data Processing

Machine Learning

Data Management

Computer Vision

Data Storage

Video Analytics

Data Visualization

Robotic Process Automation

Digitalization

Extended Reality

Web Development

Internet of Things

E-learning Portals

E-commerce Sites

Intelligent Document Processing

Product Information Management

Digital Experience Platform

Microservice Architecture

UX/UI Design

QA Automation

Cybersecurity

Performance Monitoring

Frontend Monitoring

API Management

Compliance Consulting

Digital Marketing

Marketing Automation

Visualization

Programmatic Advertising

Paid Advertising

Email Marketing

Content Marketing

Social Media

Microsoft Solutions

• Manufacturing
• Engineering
• Financial Services
• Life Insurance
• Hospitality

SlashQ Digital queue management

ContextIQ Recommendation engine

Patient Transporter Management RTLS for intra hospital transfers

TalQ Call accounting system

Rehash Low-code insurance platform

Productivity

Notification App Notification builder

Kever Project management tool

QuickPicks Salesforce widget

Cross-Industry

IIoT Platform IoT solutions for industries

App Development

Open Source Works Shared with the community

Testing & Monitoring

WebWatch24x7 Server monitoring tool

Case Studies

Featured Projects

White Papers

• Get in Touch
• Cloud Enablement Data & AI Digitalization End-to-End Digital Marketing SaaS
• Retail Healthcare Hospitality Insurance Productivity Cross-Industry App Development Testing & Monitoring
• About QBurst
• Leadership Team
• Corporate Responsibility
• Our Locations
• Privacy Policy
• Architecture
• Development
• Tools & Lab
• Delivery Model
• Open Positions
• Entry-Level Opportunities
• Submit Resume
• Company Profile
• Mid-Career Opportunities

START A CONVERSATION

Share your requirements and we'll get back to you with how we can help.

Please accept the terms to proceed.

• All Categories Artificial Intelligence Big Data Business Intelligence Cloud Design DevOps eCommerce General IoT Marketing Automation Mobile Web

Generating Malayalam Word Embeddings: A Case Study

Research shows that children primarily learn languages by observing patterns in the words they hear. Computer scientists are taking a similar approach to train computers to process human language. 

Computers cannot process words directly. Vector representations of words, known as embeddings, are used to teach machines to make sense of them. Vectors encapsulate the properties of words in them, such as semantics or relations between words. Embeddings can also contain syntactic information and can have similar vectors for various forms of words, such as, he, him, his, etc. To obtain these vectors, models are trained with large volumes of text and the embeddings are learned during the process. 

This is an example of the GloVe embedding of the word “rain” (with an embedding vector size of 300).

Overview of Static Embeddings

Word embeddings can be broadly classified into two: static and dynamic. Static embeddings have only one embedding per word regardless of the context in which they appear. These embeddings will thus be a mix of the various meanings of the word. Dynamic contextual embeddings consider the whole sentence before generating the word embedding. This makes it possible to provide different embeddings for words such as “bank” when they occur in varying contexts such as “river bank” or “bank loan”.

Even with its limitations, static word embeddings have found widespread use in many NLP applications such as classification, POS tagging, sentiment analysis, etc. This section provides a high-level picture of some of the most popular static embeddings.

Word2vec is one of the first word embeddings to find widespread popularity. It gives impressive results on word analogy tasks, such as finding words similar to a query word in a document. It works by training a shallow neural net to either learn to predict a missing word given the surrounding words (CBOW method) or the surrounding words given a word as input (skip-gram). CBOW is suitable for small datasets while skip-gram is more suitable for larger datasets. 

Global Vectors (GloVe)

GloVe embeddings are generated on the basis of co-occurrence of words over the entire training dataset. They encapsulate the probability of two words occurring together. They are optimized directly on the dataset so that the dot product of two word embeddings gives the log of the count of the co-occurrence of the two words. 

For example, if the two words “mountain” and “river” occur in the context of each other, say 20 times within a window of 10 words in the dataset, then the generated embeddings will satisfy:

Vector(mountain) . Vector(river) = log(20)

fastText is an improvement over Word2vec and GloVe in that it can support out-of-vocabulary words. During its training, fastText splits each word into an n-gram of characters. Consider the word “petrol” with an n-gram length of 5. The fastText representation of this word will be <petr, petro, etrol, trol>. The fastText model then generates embeddings for each of these n-grams. 

This model can make sense of parts of words and allow embeddings for suffixes and prefixes. Once the words have been represented using character n-grams, a skip-gram model is trained to learn the embeddings. fastText works well with rare words. So even if a word wasn’t seen during training, it can be broken down into n-grams to get its embeddings. In the above example, the learned n-gram “petro” can be used for generating embeddings for words such as “petrochemical” or “petroleum” even when the model has not seen them before. This should be especially useful for complex agglutinative languages such as Malayalam.

Challenges Specific to Malayalam Word Embeddings

Widely spoken languages such as English and Chinese have well-developed word embeddings. Malayalam is an exceptionally difficult language for generating word embeddings as most of the words can occur in different forms in a sentence. It is a highly inflectional and agglutinative language. As an example, take the word, നീലപ്പീലിക്കണ്ണും . It is made by agglutinating നീല + പീലി  + കണ്ണ്  + ഉം . A large number of variations are also possible for each word. For example, take the word പാലക്കാട്. A large number of words can be derived from it, such as പാലക്കാടിൻ്റെ. പാലക്കാടിലെ and so on by modifying the ending.

This makes it difficult for models like Word2vec since they cannot handle out-of-vocabulary words. Dravidian languages, including Malayalam, are morphologically very rich—there is a large number of possible inflections for each word. All this has the consequence of increasing the word vocabulary size and reduces the number of observed instances of a given token in a dataset. This adversely affects the quality of the generated word embeddings.

The first thing we had to do was to find a large enough collection of Malayalam text. Currently, many regional languages such as Malayalam have a relatively smaller online presence. We initially scraped the web using tools such as Beautiful Soup and Lucene. However, Malayalam language content was hard to come by and older archives were not publicly accessible in many of the news websites. Even Wikipedia had only limited resources in Malayalam.

So, we began exploring alternative avenues and came upon Common Crawl archives, which has crawl data for a large number of languages including Malayalam. Most of this data is obtained from news sites and blog posts periodically crawled over the last decade. Please check our previous blog post to learn more about how we extracted the Malayalam data from Common Crawl archives.

Evaluation of Word Embeddings

Once the word embeddings are trained, we need to have a way of knowing how good they are. So having a proper evaluation metric is important. Evaluation metrics can be broadly categorized into two: intrinsic and extrinsic.

• Intrinsic : This type of evaluation takes into account the intrinsic properties of words and their relation to each other to directly get a measure of the quality of the embeddings themselves. It is more intuitive and speeds up the whole process of building quality embeddings.

Some types of intrinsic evaluation tasks are :

• Word Similarity / Relatedness : In this task, a dataset containing word pairs and manual similarity judgments is created. Using the learned word embeddings, a similarity metric between each word pair is created, such as cosine similarity between the embeddings. The correlation between the manually judged similarity scores and the ones provided by the embeddings defines the embedding quality. 
• Word Analogy : Given a pair of words (A, B) with a particular relationship and a word C of the same type as A, the word analogy task involves predicting the word D that holds the same relationship with C as B holds with A. This task utilizes the linear relationship between word embeddings to search for the missing word. Word analogy datasets can capture semantic as well as syntactic relationships depending on the tuples included in the query inventory. For example: Given two related words, man and woman, the task will be to predict to which words a new word such as “King” would map to under the same relation. A good model will be able to predict the word “Queen”.This can be expressed algebraically as King - Man + Woman  = Queen. In other words, the vector difference between King and Queen should capture the concept of gender.
• Extrinsic : This type of evaluation measures the utility of the embeddings in another downstream NLP application like sentiment analysis, machine translation, named entity recognition, parts of speech tagging, news/article classification, etc.

We decided to evaluate using the intrinsic metrics as they tend to give a better picture of the overall quality of the models, not just for a specific application. Building evaluation datasets is a labor-intensive and time-consuming operation. To mitigate this problem, we decided to programmatically build an evaluation benchmark.

Our dataset consists of words from five categories (Languages, Animals, Places, Vegetables, Names). These categories were chosen as they appear in relatively distinct contexts in the training corpus we had. This helps the model to learn to more easily distinguish between each category. Each of these categories were then seeded with around 20 words that we picked randomly.

Then we formed triplets on the condition that wherever A and B are picked from the same category, C is chosen from a different one. In the examples shown below, words in columns A and B are picked from the languages category and the column C is made up of the words from the remaining categories such as names, places, etc. Status indicates that the row satisfies our condition.

Using just 20 examples from each category, we were able to come up with around 1 lakh test cases. After a little experimentation with a smaller dataset, we decided to use it for evaluating models trained using the Common Crawl data.

Experiments and Results

Once we established the evaluation benchmark, we trained the different models with the Malayalam text obtained from the Common Crawl archives for the month of January. The results we obtained are summarized below:

We began training with Word2vec and got an accuracy of 50.5%. Word2vec couldn’t handle many out-of-vocabulary words and hence offered low recall. GloVe embeddings couldn’t handle out-of-vocabulary words either but the accuracy improved slightly to 65% on our evaluation benchmark. 

The next step was to try out models that could handle out-of-vocabulary words. This led us to fastText. Facebook had released a fastText model for Malayalam trained using the Malayalam text available from the Common Crawl archives. However, the data they used were scraped way back in 2018. When we ran our evaluation on this model, we got an accuracy of 78%.

Since the Common Crawl archives now had more data compared to the archives available in 2018, we decided to give training fastText a go. The same dataset obtained from the January 2020 Common Crawl archives was used for the training.

After the training, the models were evaluated on our custom evaluation metric. Training the fastText model for 100 epochs with an embedding size of 100 on this dataset, we got an accuracy of 74.5% . When we continued the training to 300 epochs, the accuracy improved to 76.05% .

We then increased the embedding dimension to 300 and retrained again using the same dataset for 300 epochs. This further increased our accuracy to 76.73% . Training after 300 epochs however,did not improve the results. At this point, we concluded that we need to improve the subword tokenization and text filtering to match or exceed the results of the Facebook trained fastText model—something we will have to ascertain through further exploration.

Statistical vs. Rule-Based Machine Translation: A Comparative Study on Indian Languages

• Conference paper
• First Online: 28 December 2017
• Cite this conference paper

• S. Sreelekha 17 , 18 ,
• Pushpak Bhattacharyya 17 &
• D. Malathi 18  

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 632))

1047 Accesses

10 Citations

In this paper, we present our work on a case study between statistical machine translation (SMT) and rule-based machine translation (RBMT) systems on English-Indian language and Indian to Indian language perspective. Main objective of our study is to make a five-way performance comparison: such as, (a) SMT and RBMT; (b) SMT on English–Indian language; (c) RBMT on English–Indian language; (d) SMT on Indian to Indian language perspective; (e) RBMT on Indian to Indian language perspective. Through a detailed analysis, we describe the rule-based and the statistical machine translation system developments and its evaluations. Further, with a detailed error analysis, we point out the relative strengths and weaknesses of both the systems. The observations based on our study are: (a) SMT systems outperform RBMT; (b) In the case of SMT: English to Indian language MT systems perform better than Indian to English language MT systems; (c) In the case of RBMT: English to Indian language MT systems perform better than Indian to English language MT systems; (d) SMT systems perform better for Indian to Indian language MT systems compared to RBMT. Effectively, we shall see that even with a small amount of training corpus SMT system has many advantages for high-quality domain-specific machine translation over that of a rule-based counterpart.

• Machine translation
• Statistical machine translation
• Rule-based machine translation
• English-Indian machine translation
• Indian-Indian language machine translation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

http://tdil-dc.in/mt/common.php .

http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/SMT-System/ .

http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/SMT-EM/ .

http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/SMT-ME/ .

Anoop Kunchukuttan and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2012. Partially modelling word reordering as a sequence labeling problem, COLING 2012 .

Google Scholar  

Anoop Kunchukuttan Abhijit Mishra, Rajen Chatterjee, Ritesh Shah and Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Shata-Anuvadak: Tackling Multiway Translation of Indian Languages, LREC 2014, Rekjyavik, Iceland.

Sreelekha. S., Piyush Dungarwal, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Malathi D., Solving Data Sparsity by Morphology Injection in Factored SMT, International Conference on Natural Language Processing, ICON 2015.

Sreelekha, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Malathi D. Lexical Resources for Hindi—Marathi MT , WIDRE Proceedings, LREC 2014.

Sreelekha, Pushpak Bhattacharyya. Lexical Resources to enrich English-Malayalam Machine Translation , LREC—International Conference on Lexical Resources and Evaluation, Slovenia, 2016.

Sreelekha S., Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Malathi D., “A Case study on English-Malayalam Machine Translation”, iDravidian Proceedings, International Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2015.

Sreelekha, Raj Dabre, Pushpak Bhattacharyya 2013. Comparison of SMT and RBMT, The Requirement of Hybridization for Marathi—Hindi MT ICON, 10 th International conference on NLP, December 2013.

Shachi Dave, Jignashu Parikh and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2002. Interlingua based English-Hindi Machine Translation and Language Divergence , JMT 2002.

Arafat Ahsan, Prasanth Kolachina, Sudheer Kolachina, Dipti Misra Sharma and Rajeev Sangal. 2010. Coupling Statistical Machine Translation with Rule-based Transfer and Generation . amta2010.amtaweb.org.

Latha R. Nair, David Peter S., Renjith Ravindran. 2012. Design and Development of a Malayalam to English Translator—A Transfer based Approach , International Journal of Computational Linguistics, Volume (3): Issue (1), 2012.

Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models. Computational Linguistics, 2003.

Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2001. Statistical Multi Source Translation. MT Summit 2001.

Peter E. Brown, Stephen A. Della Pietra. Vincent J. Della Pietra, and Robert L. Mercer*. The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimationn. ACL 1993 .

Bonnie J. Dorr. 1994. Machine Translation Divergences: A Formal Description and Proposed Solution. Computational Linguistics, 1994.

Kevin Knight. 1999. Decoding complexity in word-replacement translation models , Computational Linguistics, 1999.

Ananthakrishnan Ramananthan, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Karthik Visweswariah, Kushal Ladha, and Ankur Gandhe. 2011. Clause-Based Reordering Constraints to Improve Statistical Machine Translation. IJCNLP, 2011.

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, Evan Herbst. 2007. Moses: Open Source Toolkit for Statistical Machine Translation , Annual Meeting of the ACL, demonstration session, Prague, Czech Republic, June 2007.

Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation , Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, July 2002, pp. 311–318.

Ganesh Bhosale, Subodh Kembhavi, Archana Amberkar, Supriya Mhatre, Lata Popale and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2011. Processing of Participle ( Krudanta ) in Marathi . ICON 2011, Chennai, December, 2011.

Antony P. J. 2013. Machine Translation Approaches and Survey for Indian Languages, The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, Vol. 18, No. 1, March 2013, pp. 47–78.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of India for providing fund under Woman Scientist Scheme (WOS-A) with the project code-SR/WOS-A/ET/1075/2014.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

S. Sreelekha & Pushpak Bhattacharyya

Department of Computer Science & Engineering, SRM University, Chennai, India

S. Sreelekha & D. Malathi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Sreelekha .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Subhransu Sekhar Dash

Electronics and Communication Sciences Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Swagatam Das

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India

Bijaya Ketan Panigrahi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Sreelekha, S., Bhattacharyya, P., Malathi, D. (2018). Statistical vs. Rule-Based Machine Translation: A Comparative Study on Indian Languages. In: Dash, S., Das, S., Panigrahi, B. (eds) International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Applications. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 632. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5520-1_59

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5520-1_59

Published : 28 December 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5519-5

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5520-1

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ശബ്‌ദത്തിന്റെ വേഗത

ടെക്‌സ്റ്റ് വിവർത്തനം, ഉറവിട ടെക്‌സ്‌റ്റ്, വിവർത്തന ഫലങ്ങൾ, ഡോക്യുമെന്റ് വിവർത്തനം.

വെബ്സൈറ്റ് വിവർത്തനം ചെയ്യൽ

URL നല്‍കുക

ചിത്രത്തിന്റെ വിവർത്തനം

സംരക്ഷിച്ചു.

bottom_desktop desktop:[300x250]

How to Say Case study in Malayalam

• cascading water
• common pattern
• destructively
• fill in a form
• inflammation
• once upon a time