Ideosphere Forum | |||
From owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com Sat Jan 27 14:15:48 2018 Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w0RJFm4L024464 for <fx-discuss-outgoing@ideosphere.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:15:48 -0500 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w0RJFmpw024463 for fx-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:15:48 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w0RJFlqM024460 for <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:15:48 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n132so2239446vke.2 for <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:15:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=GNx5v9HFdd+6RveNWdQghTGubhFxLhxcdUVw3YzQk34=; b=I3VfiM77XJB/oOMhjMnbx4KsVra/aofMz2O2Wj7FFzOI4OOVN+YQrEZYYN6OyXbn2j 78iQXI6ehpzLDBD4DW91j9TIo36Jtb90neIhSnC1M4Ag8qsgNHZNS0HXhdN00bpqV7WI D4jyh929QaFjF7edTP+Yz0gMci0QbdULj1x64iuo47iccn3EVxrOZWJ4V3vCpDwBwMUl pY42wyHVVbXetD8/ZN1BULMEETEOpG8V9t/J1/F2imxJRE0PxrOe+Rp76nq2bqVyD/AS FzmxcvmTPIUjNf7reT2/T4j0XMf0dqaxhKcxKe4outvvW6zeM+GZZcKUanO5Y/+eSAt+ fQEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=GNx5v9HFdd+6RveNWdQghTGubhFxLhxcdUVw3YzQk34=; b=VaXdh5FWGRVtAZY+WLbA/zDunLu7mFXqbAOV3jp3y/GWx4NIky77v8s27ABPdUWSAd PoNamxXfs9o9IkZMtMf96ADvGjB3URuELm55A1IpL9dTE2kWgH5kiiYiY4044SFjszuz miU7iGJj3/zMEr3BeHkTIqyaXKtm2YnkZKZ2ISBJh5sYp7l3pTCdRcHLBSh+5garhxM1 J3GJ1WgsYxSVQ1jKmAOR+A/2V+YNSlqC8V0et16b7LVkCUYDjib3Xyrft32hx4S+6vch 1mZbg6UImnGUIq8iEZ6bkIb1P7N9R5gFlQFP8TrTcPauovGI6bKLcxsRfyA8HcDplUW0 cO3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdall73kFESDZTdeQ1/fiQuKwYP6Mcel2lVHJK9dagXt2wuNyz7 frZjwH+UUv0lFfjcQ5G/6hc4ngFElAD/Anc+HjtVpg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226wG48xw1hVxAzEeRKkIOQTZ9HCaW4SNiFMzAgsPwE2TactJCwY7e0gJkotk8TNam2G2m9GPsAH/s/3X1KQrpw= X-Received: by 10.31.254.201 with SMTP id l192mr13977156vki.153.1517080547066; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:15:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.19.239 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:15:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAD=nd8cYwgnVeOmjHDsRSbtO0_=iEG-K5nuC4wZfdnhL-2gNVA@mail.gmail.com> References: <862447574.1932061.1515241909823.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbe25.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net> <556361200.2395480.1516457867962.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbe21.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net> <CAD=nd8cYwgnVeOmjHDsRSbtO0_=iEG-K5nuC4wZfdnhL-2gNVA@mail.gmail.com> From: Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:15:06 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KSI7XC970L5n8Ebm5KxNu_u55rk Message-ID: <CAD=nd8cgcpnMNT=C4Hcq0skAdfMcgovXkoTGBG6K58mCu=faaw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: fx-discuss: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_fx=2Ddiscuss=3A_Re=3A_fx=2Ddiscuss=3A_Fwd=3A_FX_Claim=3A_Tran_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_Machine_translation_by_2015?= To: fx-discuss <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14af701a89850563c6d782" Sender: owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: fx-discuss@ideosphere.com I am looking at judging the FX claim Tran <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Tran>. The market seems to think that this claim has not been satisfied, and I have not found evidence that it has been satisfied. Can any market participants present evidence that they think should weight toward a TRUE judgment? Please respond within the next 7 days if you have evidence to submit for consideration. Cheers, Neal "Loophole" Gafter On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com> wrote: > I am still around. I will start looking at this in a few days. > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM chrisran.bma e-mail < > chrisran.bma@virgin.net> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The due date for this claim 2017/12/31 has passed. >> >> Does anyone think or preferably have evidence to suggest this claim is >> true or false? >> >> Is the judge, Neal Gafter aka loophole still around? >> >> >> >> I have previously written things like: >> >> >> Findings of the 2017 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT17) >> >> http://www.statmt.org/wmt17/pdf/WMT17.pdf >> >> (September 7-8, 2017) >> >> and >> >> Findings of the 2016 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT16) >> >> http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-2301 >> >> (11-12 August 2016) >> >> Perhaps the following looks like what we want: >> >> [quote] >> >> 5.5.2 Human evaluation results >> >> Table 35 includes DA results for English-German and Table 36 shows >> results for German-English APE systems. Clusters are identified by grouping >> systems together according to which systems significantly outperform all >> others in lower ranking clusters, according to Wilcoxon rank-sum test. >> >> # Ave % Ave z System >> >> ___________________________ >> >> − 84.8 0.520 HUMAN POST EDIT >> >> ___________________________ >> >> 1 78.2 0.261 AMU >> >> 77.9 0.261 FBK >> >> 76.8 0.221 DCU >> >> ___________________________ >> >> 4 73.8 0.115 JXNU >> >> ___________________________ >> >> 5 71.9 0.038 USAAR >> >> 71.1 0.014 CUNI >> >> 70.2 −0.020 LIG >> >> ___________________________ >> >> − 68.6 −0.083 NO POST EDIT >> >> Table 35: EN-DE DA Human evaluation results showing average raw DA scores >> (Ave %) and average standardized scores (Ave z), lines between systems >> indicate clusters according to Wilcoxon rank-sum test at p-level p ≤ 0.05. >> >> [/quote] >> >> Seems to indicate that human translation is better than machine >> translation, but of course that doesn't guarantee that there isn't a better >> translation program somewhere from pre 31 Dec 2015 that simply didn't >> attend the conference. >> >> Still if human level translation existed in 2015, you would not expect to >> read things like >> >> [quote] >> >> This steady improvement has been mainly driven by the massive migration >> to the neural approach, which in 2016 allowed the winning system to achieve >> impressive results >> >> [/quote] >> >> I don't believe there is a program that can justifiably claim "equal or >> better average quality, as professional human translations" but proving a >> negative is difficult. I suggest if there was such a program it would be >> big news, not difficult to find, and conference findings would be markedly >> different to those linked above. >> >> Not sure how much more a judge might want before deciding how to judge >> the claim. Are there any more authoritative events or other event before >> claim deadline of 31 Dec 2017? (Note program has to exist by 31 Dec 2015 >> and translations have to 'be of comparable cost and turnaround time'.) >> >> >> The comparable cost and turnaround time requirement seems to me to >> indicate that secret research would not qualify. >> >> >> Seems like an obvious false to me. >> >> Regards >> >> Chris Randles >> >> (crandles 7886) >> >> Disclosure I hold -3603 in this claim >> >> >> >> > Back to regular message display | |||
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL |