Entity Projection via Machine Translation for Cross-Lingual NER

Alankar Jain; Bhargavi Paranjape; Zachary C. Lipton

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Entity Projection via Machine Translation for Cross-Lingual NER

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a Translate-Match-Project pipeline, using machine translation twice and matching entities by orthographic and phonetic similarity, raises cross-lingual NER by 4.1 average F1 points over prior state of the art, and…

desk verdict A solid empirical systems paper with a genuinely new projection pipeline; the core results hold, but the Armenian 'outperforms monolingual' claim is likely noise and the abstract's average needs a precise definition. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.05356 v2 pith:2UXVED6Y submitted 2019-08-31 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGstat.ML

Alankar Jain , Bhargavi Paranjape , Zachary C. Lipton This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LGstat.ML

keywords cross-lingualnamedentityrecognitionannotationprojectionmachinetranslationalignmentorthographicmatchingphoneticdistribution-basedTranslate-Match-Project

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cross-lingual named entity recognition (NER) normally needs either parallel corpora or a shared embedding space to transfer labels from a resource-rich language. This paper argues that for the many languages covered by good machine translation, the cheaper route is to translate the annotated source corpus and project the entity tags onto the translated sentences. The proposed Translate-Match-Project (TMP) method does this by translating each entity independently as well, then matching entities through spelling- and sound-based similarity, and finally rescuing unmatched entities with corpus-level statistics. The paper reports that TMP beats prior cross-lingual NER methods on five languages by an average of 4.1 F1 points and, for Armenian, outperforms even a model trained on Armenian gold data. If true, the practical point is that a small labeled dev set plus an off-the-shelf translator is enough to build a competitive NER tagger for a new language.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the Translate-Match-Project (TMP) pipeline. Translate: the source corpus is translated sentence-by-sentence by an off-the-shelf MT system. Match: each source entity generates a set of candidate forms (entity-level MT, the original string, lexicon translations); token-level matches are scored by $s_w(h,x) = \min\{n_l / L_h, n_l / L_x\}$, where $n_l$ is the number of matched characters and $L_h, L_x$ are token lengths, computed on both the raw orthography and IPA transliterations; adjacent target tokens scoring above a threshold $\delta$ are merged into spans. Project: each source entity is greedily aligned to the span with smallest character edit distance from any permutation of its candidate forms, and unmatched entities are paired with the top-$k$ tf-idf best candidates from unmatched spans. The load-bearing object is this alignment score, which turns noisy sentence-level translations into usable entity labels without any per-language feature engineering.

What would settle it

For any new language pair, compute the fraction of source entities whose sentence-level MT form fails to share an affix with any entity-alone MT form; if that fraction is high, TMP's F1 should drop toward or below the fast-align baseline on a gold test set, which would refute the claimed average improvement. The paper's own GIBBS and MEDVEDEV examples show this failure mode exists, so a language with a high rate of such contextual divergence would be a direct falsifier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that entity projection is the bottleneck in machine-translation-based annotation projection, and that it can be solved by combining three ingredients: (1) generating candidate translations for each source entity by translating the entity alone, keeping the original surface form, and adding bilingual-lexicon translations; (2) scoring token matches with a soft affix-matching score that looks at both orthographic and IPA phonetic similarity; (3) selecting final alignments by minimum character edit distance over all candidate permutations and then using tf-idf statistics to recover systematically mistranslated entities. With these ingredients, the paper reports state-of-the-art cross-lingual NER on Spanish, German, Chinese, Hindi, and Tamil, and an F1 of 62.6 on Armenian—0.4 points above a monolingual Armenian NER model. The discovery extends to parallel corpora and to the reverse translation direction, where the projection step still beats word alignment by a wide margin.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline rests on the assumption that the machine translation system preserves named entities well enough—in spelling or in sound—that the candidate forms can still be matched, even when the entity-in-sentence translation differs from the entity-alone translation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cross-lingual NER becomes feasible without parallel corpora for any language served by good machine translation, as long as a small validation set is available to tune two hyperparameters.
The gains are largest for languages whose word order differs most from English, indicating that better sentence-level MT quality, not word-by-word translation, drives the improvement.
The projection step transfers to other annotation-projection settings: reversing the translation direction and using true parallel corpora both beat the word-alignment baseline, which means the matching machinery is reusable.
For a genuinely low-resource language, Armenian, the method surpasses a monolingual model trained on over 160k tokens without any Armenian-specific resources, suggesting entity projection can shortcut dataset creation.
Ablation results indicate that each added component—phonetic matching, exact-form copy, lexicons, and distribution-based matching—improves downstream F1, so further gains should come from strengthening any of these components.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If TMP's gains hold, the same projection recipe should transfer to other token-level annotation tasks that rely on parallel text or MT, such as part-of-speech tagging and dependency parsing, wherever a bilingual lexicon or phonetically similar script is available.
The method's dependence on MT fidelity suggests a directly testable scaling law: as MT quality improves, cross-lingual NER under TMP should improve even without any change to the tagger; comparing TMP against a fast-align baseline under two MT versions of different quality would confirm this.
The paper's residual-error examples (GIBBS, MEDVEDEV) hint that most remaining failures are contextual mistranslations of rare entities; a future variant that consults the surrounding sentence when selecting candidates, rather than only using tf-idf, might close much of the gap to monolingual performance.
TMP's requirement of a small labeled dev set, even though tiny, means it is not a zero-resource method; a fully unsupervised version would need to set $\delta$ and $k$ automatically, for instance from alignment confidence distributions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a serious look. TMP is a real empirical contribution: the two-pass MT (sentence then entity), soft affix matching over orthographic and IPA forms, and tf-idf rescue combine into a pipeline that beats fast-align and BWET on most languages in Table 1, with five seeds and reported stds. The ablation (Table 4) shows each component helps, and the alignment analysis (Table 3) gives a credible mechanism for why. Code is linked. That is the core of the paper and it holds up.

The main claim needs one correction. The abstract says 'improves upon current state-of-the-art methods ... by an average of 4.1 points,' but Table 1's own numbers don't support that phrasing without a definition of which baseline and which languages. If you average TMP minus fast-align over the 6 languages you get about 4.0; if you compare against the best prior per language the average is much larger, and if you restrict to the '5 diverse languages' it isn't 4.1. That is a fixable precision problem, not a fatal one.

The bigger soft spot is the Armenian result. A single F1 of 62.6, 0.4 points above a monolingual model trained on 160k+ tokens, with no standard deviation or significance test, is well within the run-to-run variability the paper itself reports elsewhere (stds 0.4-2.2). The test set is only 53k tokens. The abstract's 'outperforming even a monolingual model' is likely noise and should not be a headline claim. The 44.8 vs 62.6 gap over fast-align is real, but that's a different claim. This needs re-analysis or rewording before publication.

Two smaller issues: BWET's Chinese value of 3.51 is almost certainly a typo for 35.1, and Table 1's 'average' column should be recomputed with the corrected value. The 'state-of-the-art' phrasing is also scoped to the four cited baselines, which is fine as long as it is stated that way.

The paper is honest about limitations: it needs a small dev set, depends on Google Translate, and falls short of large monolingual corpora. That last admission, in the conclusion, is exactly right.

Bottom line: this is a serious systems paper with a new pipeline and solid multi-language evaluation. With the Armenian claim and the abstract's average fixed, it deserves acceptance. Bring it to reading group if you want a good example of how to report variance—and how not to oversell a small gap.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Translate-Match-Project (TMP), a cross-lingual named entity recognition method that uses machine translation in two stages: first to translate the source training corpus into the target language, and then to translate individual named entities for candidate generation. Candidate matches are scored by orthographic and phonetic affix similarity, the best span is selected by edit distance, and residual unmatched entities are recovered through distributional tf-idf matching. The method is evaluated on Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Hindi, Tamil, and Armenian against several projection baselines and a monolingual upper bound. The authors report state-of-the-art results on five of the six benchmark languages and a 0.4-point F1 advantage over a monolingual Armenian model.

Significance. If the Armenian result holds, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that a projection-based approach using off-the-shelf MT can approach, and possibly exceed, a monolingual model in a genuine medium-resource language. The paper also has notable strengths: the code is released, TMP and the two main baselines are run over five seeds with standard deviations, an ablation study attributes gains to each component, and the method is tested across diverse language families and three projection settings. The evaluation is largely sound. However, the headline claims contain numerical inconsistencies and the Armenian claim lacks statistical support, so the current version needs revision before the reported results can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.3 and Conclusion] The Armenian state-of-the-art claim is not statistically supported. The text reports a single F1 of 62.6 and states that this is 0.4 points higher than a monolingual model trained on over 160k tokens of Armenian, but no standard deviation, number of seeds, or significance test is reported for either system. Given that the authors themselves report run-to-run standard deviations of 0.4-2.2 points in Table 1, a 0.4-point gap on a 53k-token test set is well within the plausible noise range. This gap is the basis for the abstract's claim of 'outperforming even a monolingual model', so it is load-bearing. Please report multiple runs or a paired significance test, or soften the claim to a competitive result.
[Abstract / Table 1] The headline improvement of '5 languages by an average of 4.1 points' does not match the numbers in Table 1 or the per-language gains given in the Introduction. If the comparison is TMP's overall average (55.1) minus fast-align's overall average (51.0), that is 4.1 points, but across six languages, not five. If it is the average of the five per-language gains listed in Section 1 (+1.1, +1.4, +5, +2.1, +5), the average is about 2.9 points. The abstract should state exactly which baseline and which language set are being compared.
[Table 1] The BWET row contains an implausible value for Chinese, '3.51 ± 0.8', which is likely a typo for '35.1 ± 0.8'. Independently, the reported BWET average of 48.5 does not match the row as printed: the mean of the six printed values is approximately 41.1, or approximately 46.3 with the corrected Chinese value. Please correct the table and recompute the averages, since these numbers feed directly into the abstract's comparison.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2] The edit-distance equation writes d_E(e_S, span(...)) but the distance is actually computed between the span and the expanded translation set T_p(e_S); please clarify the notation.
[Section 4.2, Table 2] Reverse-setting results are reported as single numbers without standard deviations, while Forward and Parallel settings include standard deviations; please state whether these are single runs or add variance information.
[Section 4.1] The state-of-the-art claims for German and Chinese implicitly compare against different baselines (fast-align for German, possibly fast-align or BWET for Chinese) without saying so; please specify the baseline used for each language.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, including 'A verage' in Table 1 and a missing space in 'state-of-the-artF1' in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: TMP is an empirical systems paper evaluated against external benchmarks, with only two hyperparameters tuned on held-out development sets.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: TMP's F1 scores on Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Hindi, Tamil, and Armenian are measured against external baselines (fast-align, BWET, Co-decoding, Polyglot-NER, and monolingual models) on public test sets. The method's design is not defined in terms of the target NER labels it predicts; candidate generation uses Google Translate, lexicons, orthographic/phonetic matching, and tf-idf statistics over the translated corpus, while tag projection transfers gold source labels to aligned target spans. The only tuned hyperparameters, delta and k, are selected using a small labeled development set, and the reported numbers are test-set F1 scores from five-seed runs; this is standard model selection, not fitting a prediction to its own outcome. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed result to an input by construction, and no load-bearing argument is justified solely by a self-citation. The Armenian result compares TMP against an externally published monolingual model and a fast-align baseline; whether the 0.4-point gap is statistically meaningful is a robustness concern, not circularity. Similarly, the GIBBS/MEDVEDEV failure examples illustrate limitations of the MT-based assumption, but those limitations do not make the derivation circular. Overall, the paper is self-contained in its evaluation against external benchmarks, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three domain assumptions: MT quality, external lexical and IPA resources, and a small dev set. The only free parameters are delta and k, tuned per language on the dev set, and their fitted values are not reported. No novel entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

delta (match threshold) = not reported; tuned per language
Section 3.1 and 3.2: span matches are kept only if the token-level match score is at least delta; tuned on the small target dev set.
k (number of top candidates in distribution-based matching) = not reported; tuned per language
Section 3.3: each unmatched source entity is matched against the top-k tf-idf candidates; k tuned on the dev set.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Off-the-shelf Google Translate yields translations in which named entities are preserved with enough orthographic or phonetic overlap to be matched by the heuristics.
Sections 3.1 to 3.3 and the experiments depend on this; the authors note failures for GIBBS and MEDVEDEV when entities are mistranslated.
domain assumption MUSE bilingual lexicons and Epitran IPA transliterations are available and correct for the target language.
Section 3.1 uses lexicons to augment translations and Section 4 uses Epitran for IPA; the Armenian case avoids them, so this is not universal.
domain assumption A small labeled development set is available in the target language for tuning delta and k.
Section 3 states the setting includes a small labeled dev set; the paper does not evaluate truly zero-resource settings without any target labels.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entity Projection via Machine Translation for Cross-Lingual NER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UXVED6Y

@misc{pith2026190905356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entity Projection via Machine Translation for Cross-Lingual NER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UXVED6Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.05356}
}

read the original abstract

Although over 100 languages are supported by strong off-the-shelf machine translation systems, only a subset of them possess large annotated corpora for named entity recognition. Motivated by this fact, we leverage machine translation to improve annotation-projection approaches to cross-lingual named entity recognition. We propose a system that improves over prior entity-projection methods by: (a) leveraging machine translation systems twice: first for translating sentences and subsequently for translating entities; (b) matching entities based on orthographic and phonetic similarity; and (c) identifying matches based on distributional statistics derived from the dataset. Our approach improves upon current state-of-the-art methods for cross-lingual named entity recognition on 5 diverse languages by an average of 4.1 points. Further, our method achieves state-of-the-art F_1 scores for Armenian, outperforming even a monolingual model trained on Armenian source data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.05356 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The Translate step of our method. manner (Samy et al., 2005; Ehrmann et al., 2011) or as features in a supervised model trained on a small seed dataset (Feng et al., 2004). Many of these papers often rely on language-specific features (Feng et al., 2004) and evaluate their alignment methods on only a few languages. To our knowledge, few works effectively use translation for annotation projection for NER, especiall… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Token-level matching: Blue boxes in row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Final aligned pairs and projected tags. We remedy this by exploiting corpus-level consistency in such discrepancies. For every unmatched source entity, we construct a set of topk potential matches ordered by their tf-idf (term frequency—inverse document frequency) s…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Examples of different errors (details in individual captions). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Rami Al-Rfou, Vivek Kulkarni, Bryan Perozzi, and Steven Skiena. 2015. Polyglot-ner: Massive multilingual named entity recognition. In International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

work page 2015
[4]

Akash Bharadwaj, David Mortensen, Chris Dyer, and Jaime Carbonell. 2016. Phonologically aware neural model for named entity recognition in low resource transfer settings. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

work page 2016
[5]

Peter F Brown, Vincent J Della Pietra, Stephen A Della Pietra, and Robert L Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational linguistics, 19(2):263--311

1993
[6]

Aditi Chaudhary, Chunting Zhou, Lori Levin, Graham Neubig, David R Mortensen, and Jaime G Carbonell. 2018. Adapting word embeddings to new languages with morphological and phonological subword representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09500

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[7]

Alexis Conneau, Guillaume Lample, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. 2017. Word translation without parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04087

arXiv 2017
[8]

Dipanjan Das and Slav Petrov. 2011. Unsupervised part-of-speech tagging with bilingual graph-based projections. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

work page 2011

Show all 45 references

[9]

Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. A simple, fast, and effective reparameterization of ibm model 2. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)

2013
[10]

Maud Ehrmann, Marco Turchi, and Ralf Steinberger. 2011. Building a multilingual named entity-annotated corpus using annotation projection. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 2011, pages 118--124

2011
[11]

Donghui Feng, Yajuan Lv, and Ming Zhou. 2004. A new approach for english-chinese named entity alignment. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

2004
[12]

Ruiji Fu, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2011. Generating chinese named entity data from a parallel corpus. In International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP)

2011
[13]

Kuzman Ganchev, Jennifer Gillenwater, and Ben Taskar. 2009. Dependency grammar induction via bitext projection constraints. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of...

2009
[14]

Tsolak Ghukasyan, Garnik Davtyan, Karen Avetisyan, and Ivan Andrianov. 2018. pioner: Datasets and baselines for armenian named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08699

2018 arXiv
[15]

Rebecca Hwa, Philip Resnik, Amy Weinberg, Clara Cabezas, and Okan Kolak. 2005. Bootstrapping parsers via syntactic projection across parallel texts. Natural language engineering, 11(3):311--325

2005
[16]

David Kamholz, Jonathan Pool, and Susan M Colowick. 2014. Panlex: Building a resource for panlingual lexical translation. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)

2014
[17]

Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In MT summit, volume 5, pages 79--86

2005
[18]

Mikhail Kozhevnikov and Ivan Titov. 2013. Cross-lingual transfer of semantic role labeling models. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 1190--1200

2013
[19]

Mikhail Kozhevnikov and Ivan Titov. 2014. Cross-lingual model transfer using feature representation projection. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

2014
[20]

Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratik Mehta, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2017. The iit bombay english-hindi parallel corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.02855

2017 arXiv
[21]

Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

2016
[22]

Stephen Mayhew, Chen-Tse Tsai, and Dan Roth. 2017. Cheap translation for cross-lingual named entity recognition. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2017
[23]

Mortensen, Siddharth Dalmia, and Patrick Littell

David R. Mortensen, Siddharth Dalmia, and Patrick Littell. 2018. Epitran: Precision G2P for many languages. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Paris, France. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)

2018
[24]

Jian Ni, Georgiana Dinu, and Radu Florian. 2017. Weakly supervised cross-lingual named entity recognition via effective annotation and representation projection. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

2017
[25]

Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R Curran. 2013. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from wikipedia. Artificial Intelligence, 194:151--175

2013
[26]

Franz Josef Och and Hermann Ney. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational linguistics, 29(1):19--51

2003
[27]

Sebastian Pad \'o and Mirella Lapata. 2009. Cross-lingual annotation projection for semantic roles. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 36:307--340

2009
[28]

Lance A Ramshaw and Mitchell P Marcus. 1999. Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In Natural language processing using very large corpora, pages 157--176. Springer

1999
[29]

Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. Reporting score distributions makes a difference: Performance study of lstm-networks for sequence tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09861

2017 arXiv
[30]

Alexander E Richman and Patrick Schone. 2008. Mining wiki resources for multilingual named entity recognition. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

2008
[31]

Doaa Samy, Antonio Moreno, and Jose M Guirao. 2005. A proposal for an arabic named entity tagger leveraging a parallel corpus. In International Conference RANLP, Borovets, Bulgaria, pages 459--465

2005
[32]

Tjong Kim Sang

Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. Introduction to the C o NLL -2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In COLING-02: The 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning ( C o NLL )

2002
[33]

Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder

Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the C o NLL -2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL

2003
[34]

Rushin Shah, Bo Lin, Anatole Gershman, and Robert Frederking. 2010. Synergy: a named entity recognition system for resource-scarce languages such as swahili using online machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on African Language Technology (AfLaT 2010), pag...

2010
[35]

David A Smith and Jason Eisner. 2009. Parser adaptation and projection with quasi-synchronous grammar features. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2009
[36]

a ckstr \

Oscar T \"a ckstr \"o m, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Ryan McDonald, and Joakim Nivre. 2013. Token and type constraints for cross-lingual part-of-speech tagging. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 1:1--12

2013
[37]

a ckstr \

Oscar T \"a ckstr \"o m, Ryan McDonald, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2012. Cross-lingual word clusters for direct transfer of linguistic structure. In Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language tech...

2012
[38]

J \"o rg Tiedemann, Z eljko Agi \'c , and Joakim Nivre. 2014. Treebank translation for cross-lingual parser induction. In Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2014)

2014
[39]

Sara Tonelli and Emanuele Pianta. 2008. Frame information transfer from english to italian. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)

2008
[40]

Ralph Weischedel, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Martha Palmer, Nianwen Xue, Mitchell Marcus, Ann Taylor, Craig Greenberg, Eduard Hovy, Robert Belvin, et al. 2011. Ontonotes release 4.0. LDC2011T03, Philadelphia, Penn.: Linguistic Data Consortium

2011
[41]

Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144

2016 arXiv
[42]

Chenhai Xi and Rebecca Hwa. 2005. A backoff model for bootstrapping resources for non-english languages. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2005
[43]

Smith, and Jaime Carbonell

Jiateng Xie, Zhilin Yang, Graham Neubig, Noah A. Smith, and Jaime Carbonell. 2018. Neural cross-lingual named entity recognition with minimal resources. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2018
[44]

David Yarowsky, Grace Ngai, and Richard Wicentowski. 2001. Inducing multilingual text analysis tools via robust projection across aligned corpora. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Human language technology research. Association for Computational Linguistics

2001
[45]

Daniel Zeman and Philip Resnik. 2008. Cross-language parser adaptation between related languages. In IJCNLP-08 Workshop on NLP for Less Privileged Languages

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Rami Al-Rfou, Vivek Kulkarni, Bryan Perozzi, and Steven Skiena. 2015. Polyglot-ner: Massive multilingual named entity recognition. In International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Akash Bharadwaj, David Mortensen, Chris Dyer, and Jaime Carbonell. 2016. Phonologically aware neural model for named entity recognition in low resource transfer settings. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Peter F Brown, Vincent J Della Pietra, Stephen A Della Pietra, and Robert L Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational linguistics, 19(2):263--311

1993

[6] [6]

Aditi Chaudhary, Chunting Zhou, Lori Levin, Graham Neubig, David R Mortensen, and Jaime G Carbonell. 2018. Adapting word embeddings to new languages with morphological and phonological subword representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09500

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Alexis Conneau, Guillaume Lample, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. 2017. Word translation without parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04087

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Dipanjan Das and Slav Petrov. 2011. Unsupervised part-of-speech tagging with bilingual graph-based projections. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

work page 2011