prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How large is their data set?
Context 1: Introduction
The task of document quality assessment is to automatically assess a document according to some predefined inventory of quality labels  This can take many forms, including essay scoring (quality = language quality, coherence, and relevance to a topic), job application filtering (quality = suitability for role + visual/presentational quality of the application), or answer selection in community question answering (quality = actionability + relevance of the answer to the question)  In the case of this paper, we focus on document quality assessment in two contexts: Wikipedia document quality classification, and whether a paper submitted to a conference was accepted or not 
Automatic quality assessment has obvious benefits in terms of time savings and tractability in contexts where the volume of documents is large  In the case of dynamic documents (possibly with multiple authors), such as in the case of Wikipedia, it is particularly pertinent, as any edit potentially has implications for the quality label of that document (and around 10 English Wikipedia documents are edited per second)  Furthermore, when the quality assessment task is decentralized (as in the case of Wikipedia and academic paper assessment), quality criteria are often applied inconsistently by different people, where an automatic document quality assessment system could potentially reduce inconsistencies and enable immediate author feedback 
Current studies on document quality assessment mainly focus on textual features  For example, BIBREF0 examine features such as the article length and the number of headings to predict the quality class of a Wikipedia article  In contrast to these studies, in this paper, we propose to combine text features with visual features, based on a visual rendering of the document  Figure 1 illustrates our intuition, relative to Wikipedia articles  Without being able to read the text, we can tell that the article in Figure 1 has higher quality than Figure 1 , as it has a detailed infobox, extensive references, and a variety of images  Based on this intuition, we aim to answer the following question: can we achieve better accuracy on document quality assessment by complementing textual features with visual features?
Our visual model is based on fine-tuning an Inception V3 model BIBREF1 over visual renderings of documents, while our textual model is based on a hierarchical biLSTM  We further combine the two into a joint model  We perform experiments on two datasets: a Wikipedia dataset novel to this paper, and an arXiv dataset provided by BIBREF2 split into three sub-parts based on subject category  Experimental results on the visual renderings of documents show that implicit quality indicators, such as images and visual layout, can be captured by an image classifier, at a level comparable to a text classifier  When we combine the two models, we achieve state-of-the-art results over 3/4 of our datasets 
This paper makes the following contributions:
All code and data associated with this research will be released on publication 
Related Work
A variety of approaches have been proposed for document quality assessment across different domains: Wikipedia article quality assessment, academic paper rating, content quality assessment in community question answering (cQA), and essay scoring  Among these approaches, some use hand-crafted features while others use neural networks to learn features from documents  For each domain, we first briefly describe feature-based approaches and then review neural network-based approaches  Wikipedia article quality assessment: Quality assessment of Wikipedia articles is a task that assigns a quality class label to a given Wikipedia article, mirroring the quality assessment process that the Wikipedia community carries out manually  Many approaches have been proposed that use features from the article itself, meta-data features (e g , the editors, and Wikipedia article revision history), or a combination of the two  Article-internal features capture information such as whether an article is properly organized, with supporting evidence, and with appropriate terminology  For example, BIBREF3 use writing styles represented by binarized character trigram features to identify featured articles  BIBREF4 and BIBREF0 explore the number of headings, images, and references in the article  BIBREF5 use nine readability scores, such as the percentage of difficult words in the document, to measure the quality of the article  Meta-data features, which are indirect indicators of article quality, are usually extracted from revision history, and the interaction between editors and articles  For example, one heuristic that has been proposed is that higher-quality articles have more edits BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   BIBREF8 use the percentage of registered editors and the total number of editors of an article  Article–editor dependencies have also been explored  For example, BIBREF9 use the authority of editors to measure the quality of Wikipedia articles, where the authority of editors is determined by the articles they edit  Deep learning approaches to predicting Wikipedia article quality have also been proposed  For example, BIBREF10 use a version of doc2vec BIBREF11 to represent articles, and feed the document embeddings into a four hidden layer neural network  BIBREF12 first obtain sentence representations by averaging words within a sentence, and then apply a biLSTM BIBREF13 to learn a document-level representation, which is combined with hand-crafted features as side information  BIBREF14 exploit two stacked biLSTMs to learn document representations 
Academic paper rating: Academic paper rating is a relatively new task in NLP/AI, with the basic formulation being to automatically predict whether to accept or reject a paper  BIBREF2 explore hand-crafted features, such as the length of the title, whether specific words (such as outperform, state-of-the-art, and novel) appear in the abstract, and an embedded representation of the abstract as input to different downstream learners, such as logistic regression, decision tree, and random forest  BIBREF15 exploit a modularized hierarchical convolutional neural network (CNN), where each paper section is treated as a module  For each paper section, they train an attention-based CNN, and an attentive pooling layer is applied to the concatenated representation of each section, which is then fed into a softmax layer 
Content quality assessment in cQA: Automatic quality assessment in cQA is the task of determining whether an answer is of high quality, selected as the best answer, or ranked higher than other answers  To measure answer content quality in cQA, researchers have exploited various features from different sources, such as the answer content itself, the answerer's profile, interactions among users, and usage of the content  The most common feature used is the answer length BIBREF16 , BIBREF17 , with other features including: syntactic and semantic features, such as readability scores  BIBREF18 ; similarity between the question and the answer at lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 , BIBREF20 ; or user data (e g , a user's status points or the number of answers written by the user)  There have also been approaches using neural networks  For example, BIBREF21 combine CNN-learned representations with hand-crafted features to predict answer quality  BIBREF22 use a 2-dimensional CNN to learn the semantic relevance of an answer to the question, and apply an LSTM to the answer sequence to model thread context  BIBREF23 and BIBREF24 model the problem similarly to machine translation quality estimation, treating answers as competing translation hypotheses and the question as the reference translation, and apply neural machine translation to the problem  Essay scoring: Automated essay scoring is the task of assigning a score to an essay, usually in the context of assessing the language ability of a language learner  The quality of an essay is affected by the following four primary dimensions: topic relevance, organization and coherence, word usage and sentence complexity, and grammar and mechanics  To measure whether an essay is relevant to its “prompt” (the description of the essay topic), lexical and semantic overlap is commonly used BIBREF25 , BIBREF26   BIBREF27 explore word features, such as the number of verb formation errors, average word frequency, and average word length, to measure word usage and lexical complexity  BIBREF28 use sentence structure features to measure sentence variety  The effects of grammatical and mechanic errors on the quality of an essay are measured via word and part-of-speech $n$ -gram features and “mechanics” features BIBREF29 (e g , spelling, capitalization, and punctuation), respectively  BIBREF30 , BIBREF31 , and BIBREF32 use an LSTM to obtain an essay representation, which is used as the basis for classification  Similarly, BIBREF33 utilize a CNN to obtain sentence representation and an LSTM to obtain essay representation, with an attention layer at both the sentence and essay levels 
The Proposed Joint Model
We treat document quality assessment as a classification problem, i e , given a document, we predict its quality class (e g , whether an academic paper should be accepted or rejected)  The proposed model is a joint model that integrates visual features learned through Inception V3 with textual features learned through a biLSTM  In this section, we present the details of the visual and textual embeddings, and finally describe how we combine the two  We return to discuss hyper-parameter settings and the experimental configuration in the Experiments section 
Visual Embedding Learning
A wide range of models have been proposed to tackle the image classification task, such as VGG BIBREF34 , ResNet BIBREF35 , Inception V3 BIBREF1 , and Xception BIBREF36   However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no existing work that has proposed to use visual renderings of documents to assess document quality  In this paper, we use Inception V3 pretrained on ImageNet (“Inception” hereafter) to obtain visual embeddings of documents, noting that any image classifier could be applied to our task  The input to Inception is a visual rendering (screenshot) of a document, and the output is a visual embedding, which we will later integrate with our textual embedding 
Based on the observation that it is difficult to decide what types of convolution to apply to each layer (such as 3 $\times $ 3 or 5 $\times $ 5), the basic Inception model applies multiple convolution filters in parallel and concatenates the resulting features, which are fed into the next layer  This has the benefit of capturing both local features through smaller convolutions and abstracted features through larger convolutions  Inception is a hybrid of multiple Inception models of different architectures  To reduce computational cost, Inception also modifies the basic model by applying a 1 $\times $ 1 convolution to the input and factorizing larger convolutions into smaller ones 
Textual Embedding Learning
We adopt a bi-directional LSTM model to generate textual embeddings for document quality assessment, following the method of BIBREF12 (“biLSTM” hereafter)  The input to biLSTM is a textual document, and the output is a textual embedding, which will later integrate with the visual embedding 
For biLSTM, each word is represented as a word embedding BIBREF37 , and an average-pooling layer is applied to the word embeddings to obtain the sentence embedding, which is fed into a bi-directional LSTM to generate the document embedding from the sentence embeddings  Then a max-pooling layer is applied to select the most salient features from the component sentences 
The Joint Model
The proposed joint model (“Joint” hereafter) combines the visual and textual embeddings (output of Inception and biLSTM) via a simple feed-forward layer and softmax over the document label set, as shown in Figure 2   We optimize our model based on cross-entropy loss 
Experiments
In this section, we first describe the two datasets used in our experiments: (1) Wikipedia, and (2) arXiv  Then, we report the experimental details and results 
Datasets
The Wikipedia dataset consists of articles from English Wikipedia, with quality class labels assigned by the Wikipedia community  Wikipedia articles are labelled with one of six quality classes, in descending order of quality: Featured Article (“FA”), Good Article (“GA”), B-class Article (“B”), C-class Article (“C”), Start Article (“Start”), and Stub Article (“Stub”)  A description of the criteria associated with the different classes can be found in the Wikipedia grading scheme page  The quality class of a Wikipedia article is assigned by Wikipedia reviewers or any registered user, who can discuss through the article's talk page to reach consensus  We constructed the dataset by first crawling all articles from each quality class repository, e g , we get FA articles by crawling pages from the FA repository: https://en wikipedia org/wiki/Category:Featured_articles  This resulted in around 5K FA, 28K GA, 212K B, 533K C, 2 6M Start, and 3 2M Stub articles 
We randomly sampled 5,000 articles from each quality class and removed all redirect pages, resulting in a dataset of 29,794 articles  As the wikitext contained in each document contains markup relating to the document category such as {Featured Article} or {geo-stub}, which reveals the label, we remove such information  We additionally randomly partitioned this dataset into training, development, and test splits based on a ratio of 8:1:1  Details of the dataset are summarized in Table 1  
We generate a visual representation of each document via a 1,000 $\times $ 2,000-pixel screenshot of the article via a PhantomJS script over the rendered version of the article, ensuring that the screenshot and wikitext versions of the article are the same version  Any direct indicators of document quality (such as the FA indicator, which is a bronze star icon in the top right corner of the webpage) are removed from the screenshot 
The arXiv dataset BIBREF2 consists of three subsets of academic articles under the arXiv repository of Computer Science (cs), from the three subject areas of: Artificial Intelligence (cs ai), Computation and Language (cs cl), and Machine Learning (cs lg)  In line with the original dataset formulation BIBREF2 , a paper is considered to have been accepted (i e  is positively labeled) if it matches a paper in the DBLP database or is otherwise accepted by any of the following conferences: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, NIPS, ICML, ICLR, or AAAI  Failing this, it is considered to be rejected (noting that some of the papers may not have been submitted to one of these conferences)  The median numbers of pages for papers in cs ai, cs cl, and cs lg are 11, 10, and 12, respectively  To make sure each page in the PDF file has the same size in the screenshot, we crop the PDF file of a paper to the first 12; we pad the PDF file with blank pages if a PDF file has less than 12 pages, using the PyPDF2 Python package  We then use ImageMagick to convert the 12-page PDF file to a single 1,000 $\times $ 2,000 pixel screenshot  Table 2 details this dataset, where the “Accepted” column denotes the percentage of positive instances (accepted papers) in each subset 
Experimental Setting
As discussed above, our model has two main components — biLSTM and Inception— which generate textual and visual representations, respectively  For the biLSTM component, the documents are preprocessed as described in BIBREF12 , where an article is divided into sentences and tokenized using NLTK BIBREF38   Words appearing more than 20 times are retained when building the vocabulary  All other words are replaced by the special UNK token  We use the pre-trained GloVe BIBREF39 50-dimensional word embeddings to represent words  For words not in GloVe, word embeddings are randomly initialized based on sampling from a uniform distribution $U(-1, 1)$   All word embeddings are updated in the training process  We set the LSTM hidden layer size to 256  The concatenation of the forward and backward LSTMs thus gives us 512 dimensions for the document embedding  A dropout layer is applied at the sentence and document level, respectively, with a probability of 0 5 
For Inception, we adopt data augmentation techniques in the training with a “nearest” filling mode, a zoom range of 0 1, a width shift range of 0 1, and a height shift range of 0 1  As the original screenshots have the size of 1,000 $\times 2$ ,000 pixels, they are resized to 500 $\times $ 500 to feed into Inception, where the input shape is (500, 500, 3)  A dropout layer is applied with a probability of 0 5  Then, a GlobalAveragePooling2D layer is applied, which produces a 2,048 dimensional representation 
For the Joint model, we get a representation of 2,560 dimensions by concatenating the 512 dimensional representation from the biLSTM with the 2,048 dimensional representation from Inception  The dropout layer is applied to the two components with a probability of 0 5  For biLSTM, we use a mini-batch size of 128 and a learning rate of 0 001  For both Inception and joint model, we use a mini-batch size of 16 and a learning rate of 0 0001  All hyper-parameters were set empirically over the development data, and the models were optimized using the Adam optimizer BIBREF40  
In the training phase, the weights in Inception are initialized by parameters pretrained on ImageNet, and the weights in biLSTM are randomly initialized (except for the word embeddings)  We train each model for 50 epochs  However, to prevent overfitting, we adopt early stopping, where we stop training the model if the performance on the development set does not improve for 20 epochs  For evaluation, we use (micro-)accuracy, following previous studies BIBREF5 , BIBREF2  
Baseline Approaches
We compare our models against the following five baselines:
Majority: the model labels all test samples with the majority class of the training data 
Benchmark: a benchmark method from the literature  In the case of Wikipedia, this is BIBREF5 , who use structural features and readability scores as features to build a random forest classifier; for arXiv, this is BIBREF2 , who use hand-crafted features, such as the number of references and TF-IDF weighted bag-of-words in abstract, to build a classifier based on the best of logistic regression, multi-layer perception, and AdaBoost 
Doc2Vec: doc2vec BIBREF11 to learn document embeddings with a dimension of 500, and a 4-layer feed-forward classification model on top of this, with 2000, 1000, 500, and 200 dimensions, respectively 
biLSTM: first derive a sentence representation by averaging across words in a sentence, then feed the sentence representation into a biLSTM and a maxpooling layer over output sequence to learn a document level representation with a dimension of 512, which is used to predict document quality 
Inception $_{\text{fixed}}$ : the frozen Inception model, where only parameters in the last layer are fine-tuned during training 
The hyper-parameters of Benchmark, Doc2Vec, and biLSTM are based on the corresponding papers except that: (1) we fine-tune the feed forward layer of Doc2Vec on the development set and train the model 300 epochs on Wikipedia and 50 epochs on arXiv; (2) we do not use hand-crafted features for biLSTM as we want the baselines to be comparable to our models, and the main focus of this paper is not to explore the effects of hand-crafted features (e g , see BIBREF12 ) 
Experimental Results
Table 3 shows the performance of the different models over our two datasets, in the form of the average accuracy on the test set (along with the standard deviation) over 10 runs, with different random initializations 
On Wikipedia, we observe that the performance of biLSTM, Inception, and Joint is much better than that of all four baselines  Inception achieves 2 9% higher accuracy than biLSTM  The performance of Joint achieves an accuracy of 59 4%, which is 5 3% higher than using textual features alone (biLSTM) and 2 4% higher than using visual features alone (Inception)  Based on a one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the performance of Joint is statistically significant ( $p<0 05$ )  This shows that the textual and visual features complement each other, achieving state-of-the-art results in combination 
For arXiv, baseline methods Majority, Benchmark, and Inception $_{\text{fixed}}$ outperform biLSTM over cs ai, in large part because of the class imbalance in this dataset (90% of papers are rejected)  Surprisingly, Inception $_{\text{fixed}}$ is better than Majority and Benchmark over the arXiv cs lg subset, which verifies the usefulness of visual features, even when only the last layer is fine-tuned  Table 3 also shows that Inception and biLSTM achieve similar performance on arXiv, showing that textual and visual representations are equally discriminative: Inception and biLSTM are indistinguishable over cs cl; biLSTM achieves 1 8% higher accuracy over cs lg, while Inception achieves 1 3% higher accuracy over cs ai  Once again, the Joint model achieves the highest accuracy on cs ai and cs cl by combining textual and visual representations (at a level of statistical significance for cs ai)  This, again, confirms that textual and visual features complement each other, and together they achieve state-of-the-art results  On arXiv cs lg, Joint achieves a 0 6% higher accuracy than Inception by combining visual features and textual features, but biLSTM achieves the highest accuracy  One characteristic of cs lg documents is that they tend to contain more equations than the other two arXiv datasets, and preliminary analysis suggests that the biLSTM is picking up on a correlation between the volume/style of mathematical presentation and the quality of the document 
Analysis
In this section, we first analyze the performance of Inception and Joint  We also analyze the performance of different models on different quality classes  The high-level representations learned by different models are also visualized and discussed  As the Wikipedia test set is larger and more balanced than that of arXiv, our analysis will focus on Wikipedia 
Inception
To better understand the performance of Inception, we generated the gradient-based class activation map BIBREF41 , by maximizing the outputs of each class in the penultimate layer, as shown in Figure 3   From Figure 3 and Figure 3 , we can see that Inception identifies the two most important regions (one at the top corresponding to the table of contents, and the other at the bottom, capturing both document length and references) that contribute to the FA class prediction, and a region in the upper half of the image that contributes to the GA class prediction (capturing the length of the article body)  From Figure 3 and Figure 3 , we can see that the most important regions in terms of B and C class prediction capture images (down the left and right of the page, in the case of B and C), and document length/references  From Figure 3 and Figure 3 , we can see that Inception finds that images in the top right corner are the strongest predictor of Start class prediction, and (the lack of) images/the link bar down the left side of the document are the most important for Stub class prediction 
Joint
Table 4 shows the confusion matrix of Joint on Wikipedia  We can see that more than 50% of documents for each quality class are correctly classified, except for the C class where more documents are misclassified into B  Analysis shows that when misclassified, documents are usually misclassified into adjacent quality classes, which can be explained by the Wikipedia grading scheme, where the criteria for adjacent quality classes are more similar 
We also provide a breakdown of precision (“ $\mathcal {P}$ ”), recall (“ $\mathcal {R}$ ”), and F1 score (“ $\mathcal {F}_{\beta =1}$ ”) for biLSTM, Inception, and Joint across the quality classes in Table 5   We can see that Joint achieves the highest accuracy in 11 out of 18 cases  It is also worth noting that all models achieve higher scores for FA, GA, and Stub articles than B, C and Start articles  This can be explained in part by the fact that FA and GA articles must pass an official review based on structured criteria, and in part by the fact that Stub articles are usually very short, which is discriminative for Inception, and Joint  All models perform worst on the B and C quality classes  It is difficult to differentiate B articles from C articles even for Wikipedia contributors  As evidence of this, when we crawled a new dataset including talk pages with quality class votes from Wikipedia contributors, we found that among articles with three or more quality labels, over 20% percent of B and C articles have inconsistent votes from Wikipedia contributors, whereas for FA and GA articles the number is only 0 7% 
We further visualize the learned document representations of biLSTM, Inception, and Joint in the form of a t-SNE plot BIBREF42 in Figure 4   The degree of separation between Start and Stub achieved by Inception is much greater than for biLSTM, with the separation between Start and Stub achieved by Joint being the clearest among the three models  Inception and Joint are better than biLSTM at separating Start and C  Joint achieves slightly better performance than Inception in separating GA and FA  We can also see that it is difficult for all models to separate B and C, which is consistent with the findings of Tables 4 and 5  
Conclusions
We proposed to use visual renderings of documents to capture implicit document quality indicators, such as font choices, images, and visual layout, which are not captured in textual content  We applied neural network models to capture visual features given visual renderings of documents  Experimental results show that we achieve a 2 9% higher accuracy than state-of-the-art approaches based on textual features over Wikipedia, and performance competitive with or surpassing state-of-the-art approaches over arXiv  We further proposed a joint model, combining textual and visual representations, to predict the quality of a document  Experimental results show that our joint model outperforms the visual-only model in all cases, and the text-only model on Wikipedia and two subsets of arXiv  These results underline the feasibility of assessing document quality via visual features, and the complementarity of visual and textual document representations for quality assessment 
Context 3: Introduction
End-to-end speech-to-text translation (ST) has attracted much attention recently BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5, BIBREF6 given its simplicity against cascading automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) systems  The lack of labeled data, however, has become a major blocker for bridging the performance gaps between end-to-end models and cascading systems  Several corpora have been developed in recent years  post2013improved introduced a 38-hour Spanish-English ST corpus by augmenting the transcripts of the Fisher and Callhome corpora with English translations  di-gangi-etal-2019-must created the largest ST corpus to date from TED talks but the language pairs involved are out of English only  beilharz2019librivoxdeen created a 110-hour German-English ST corpus from LibriVox audiobooks  godard-etal-2018-low created a Moboshi-French ST corpus as part of a rare language documentation effort  woldeyohannis provided an Amharic-English ST corpus in the tourism domain  boito2019mass created a multilingual ST corpus involving 8 languages from a multilingual speech corpus based on Bible readings BIBREF7  Previous work either involves language pairs out of English, very specific domains, very low resource languages or a limited set of language pairs  This limits the scope of study, including the latest explorations on end-to-end multilingual ST BIBREF8, BIBREF9  Our work is mostly similar and concurrent to iranzosnchez2019europarlst who created a multilingual ST corpus from the European Parliament proceedings  The corpus we introduce has larger speech durations and more translation tokens  It is diversified with multiple speakers per transcript/translation  Finally, we provide additional out-of-domain test sets 
In this paper, we introduce CoVoST, a multilingual ST corpus based on Common Voice BIBREF10 for 11 languages into English, diversified with over 11,000 speakers and over 60 accents  It includes a total 708 hours of French (Fr), German (De), Dutch (Nl), Russian (Ru), Spanish (Es), Italian (It), Turkish (Tr), Persian (Fa), Swedish (Sv), Mongolian (Mn) and Chinese (Zh) speeches, with French and German ones having the largest durations among existing public corpora  We also collect an additional evaluation corpus from Tatoeba for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish, resulting in a total of 9 3 hours of speech  Both corpora are created at the sentence level and do not require additional alignments or segmentation  Using the official Common Voice train-development-test split, we also provide baseline models, including, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end many-to-one multilingual ST models  CoVoST is released under CC0 license and free to use  The Tatoeba evaluation samples are also available under friendly CC licenses  All the data can be acquired at https://github com/facebookresearch/covost 
Data Collection and Processing ::: Common Voice (CoVo)
Common Voice BIBREF10 is a crowdsourcing speech recognition corpus with an open CC0 license  Contributors record voice clips by reading from a bank of donated sentences  Each voice clip was validated by at least two other users  Most of the sentences are covered by multiple speakers, with potentially different genders, age groups or accents 
Raw CoVo data contains samples that passed validation as well as those that did not  To build CoVoST, we only use the former one and reuse the official train-development-test partition of the validated data  As of January 2020, the latest CoVo 2019-06-12 release includes 29 languages  CoVoST is currently built on that release and covers the following 11 languages: French, German, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Persian, Swedish, Mongolian and Chinese 
Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators  Note that the translators had access to the transcripts but not the corresponding voice clips since clips would not carry additional information  Since transcripts were duplicated due to multiple speakers, we deduplicated the transcripts before sending them to translators  As a result, different voice clips of the same content (transcript) will have identical translations in CoVoST for train, development and test splits 
In order to control the quality of the professional translations, we applied various sanity checks to the translations BIBREF11  1) For German-English, French-English and Russian-English translations, we computed sentence-level BLEU BIBREF12 with the NLTK BIBREF13 implementation between the human translations and the automatic translations produced by a state-of-the-art system BIBREF14 (the French-English system was a Transformer big BIBREF15 separately trained on WMT14)  We applied this method to these three language pairs only as we are confident about the quality of the corresponding systems  Translations with a score that was too low were manually inspected and sent back to the translators when needed  2) We manually inspected examples where the source transcript was identical to the translation  3) We measured the perplexity of the translations using a language model trained on a large amount of clean monolingual data BIBREF14  We manually inspected examples where the translation had a high perplexity and sent them back to translators accordingly  4) We computed the ratio of English characters in the translations  We manually inspected examples with a low ratio and sent them back to translators accordingly  5) Finally, we used VizSeq BIBREF16 to calculate similarity scores between transcripts and translations based on LASER cross-lingual sentence embeddings BIBREF17  Samples with low scores were manually inspected and sent back for translation when needed 
We also sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets in terms of transcripts and voice clips (via MD5 file hashing), and confirm they are totally disjoint 
Data Collection and Processing ::: Tatoeba (TT)
Tatoeba (TT) is a community built language learning corpus having sentences aligned across multiple languages with the corresponding speech partially available  Its sentences are on average shorter than those in CoVoST (see also Table TABREF2) given the original purpose of language learning  Sentences in TT are licensed under CC BY 2 0 FR and part of the speeches are available under various CC licenses 
We construct an evaluation set from TT (for French, German, Dutch, Russian and Spanish) as a complement to CoVoST development and test sets  We collect (speech, transcript, English translation) triplets for the 5 languages and do not include those whose speech has a broken URL or is not CC licensed  We further filter these samples by sentence lengths (minimum 4 words including punctuations) to reduce the portion of short sentences  This makes the resulting evaluation set closer to real-world scenarios and more challenging 
We run the same quality checks for TT as for CoVoST but we do not find poor quality translations according to our criteria  Finally, we report the overlap between CoVo transcripts and TT sentences in Table TABREF5  We found a minimal overlap, which makes the TT evaluation set a suitable additional test set when training on CoVoST 
Data Analysis ::: Basic Statistics
Basic statistics for CoVoST and TT are listed in Table TABREF2 including (unique) sentence counts, speech durations, speaker demographics (partially available) as well as vocabulary and token statistics (based on Moses-tokenized sentences by sacreMoses) on both transcripts and translations  We see that CoVoST has over 327 hours of German speeches and over 171 hours of French speeches, which, to our knowledge, corresponds to the largest corpus among existing public ST corpora (the second largest is 110 hours BIBREF18 for German and 38 hours BIBREF19 for French)  Moreover, CoVoST has a total of 18 hours of Dutch speeches, to our knowledge, contributing the first public Dutch ST resource  CoVoST also has around 27-hour Russian speeches, 37-hour Italian speeches and 67-hour Persian speeches, which is 1 8 times, 2 5 times and 13 3 times of the previous largest public one BIBREF7  Most of the sentences (transcripts) in CoVoST are covered by multiple speakers with potentially different accents, resulting in a rich diversity in the speeches  For example, there are over 1,000 speakers and over 10 accents in the French and German development / test sets  This enables good coverage of speech variations in both model training and evaluation 
Data Analysis ::: Speaker Diversity
As we can see from Table TABREF2, CoVoST is diversified with a rich set of speakers and accents  We further inspect the speaker demographics in terms of sample distributions with respect to speaker counts, accent counts and age groups, which is shown in Figure FIGREF6, FIGREF7 and FIGREF8  We observe that for 8 of the 11 languages, at least 60% of the sentences (transcripts) are covered by multiple speakers  Over 80% of the French sentences have at least 3 speakers  And for German sentences, even over 90% of them have at least 5 speakers  Similarly, we see that a large portion of sentences are spoken in multiple accents for French, German, Dutch and Spanish  Speakers of each language also spread widely across different age groups (below 20, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s) 
Baseline Results
We provide baselines using the official train-development-test split on the following tasks: automatic speech recognition (ASR), machine translation (MT) and speech translation (ST) 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Data Preprocessing
We convert raw MP3 audio files from CoVo and TT into mono-channel waveforms, and downsample them to 16,000 Hz  For transcripts and translations, we normalize the punctuation, we tokenize the text with sacreMoses and lowercase it  For transcripts, we further remove all punctuation markers except for apostrophes  We use character vocabularies on all the tasks, with 100% coverage of all the characters  Preliminary experimentation showed that character vocabularies provided more stable training than BPE  For MT, the vocabulary is created jointly on both transcripts and translations  We extract 80-channel log-mel filterbank features, computed with a 25ms window size and 10ms window shift using torchaudio  The features are normalized to 0 mean and 1 0 standard deviation  We remove samples having more than 3,000 frames or more than 256 characters for GPU memory efficiency (less than 25 samples are removed for all languages) 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Model Training
Our ASR and ST models follow the architecture in berard2018end, but have 3 decoder layers like that in pino2019harnessing  For MT, we use a Transformer base architecture BIBREF15, but with 3 encoder layers, 3 decoder layers and 0 3 dropout  We use a batch size of 10,000 frames for ASR and ST, and a batch size of 4,000 tokens for MT  We train all models using Fairseq BIBREF20 for up to 200,000 updates  We use SpecAugment BIBREF21 for ASR and ST to alleviate overfitting 
Baseline Results ::: Experimental Settings ::: Inference and Evaluation
We use a beam size of 5 for all models  We use the best checkpoint by validation loss for MT, and average the last 5 checkpoints for ASR and ST  For MT and ST, we report case-insensitive tokenized BLEU BIBREF22 using sacreBLEU BIBREF23  For ASR, we report word error rate (WER) and character error rate (CER) using VizSeq 
Baseline Results ::: Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR)
For simplicity, we use the same model architecture for ASR and ST, although we do not leverage ASR models to pretrain ST model encoders later  Table TABREF18 shows the word error rate (WER) and character error rate (CER) for ASR models  We see that French and German perform the best given they are the two highest resource languages in CoVoST  The other languages are relatively low resource (especially Turkish and Swedish) and the ASR models are having difficulties to learn from this data 
Baseline Results ::: Machine Translation (MT)
MT models take transcripts (without punctuation) as inputs and outputs translations (with punctuation)  For simplicity, we do not change the text preprocessing methods for MT to correct this mismatch  Moreover, this mismatch also exists in cascading ST systems, where MT model inputs are the outputs of an ASR model  Table TABREF20 shows the BLEU scores of MT models  We notice that the results are consistent with what we see from ASR models  For example thanks to abundant training data, French has a decent BLEU score of 29 8/25 4  German doesn't perform well, because of less richness of content (transcripts)  The other languages are low resource in CoVoST and it is difficult to train decent models without additional data or pre-training techniques 
Baseline Results ::: Speech Translation (ST)
CoVoST is a many-to-one multilingual ST corpus  While end-to-end one-to-many and many-to-many multilingual ST models have been explored very recently BIBREF8, BIBREF9, many-to-one multilingual models, to our knowledge, have not  We hence use CoVoST to examine this setting  Table TABREF22 and TABREF23 show the BLEU scores for both bilingual and multilingual end-to-end ST models trained on CoVoST  We observe that combining speeches from multiple languages is consistently bringing gains to low-resource languages (all besides French and German)  This includes combinations of distant languages, such as Ru+Fr, Tr+Fr and Zh+Fr  Moreover, some combinations do bring gains to high-resource language (French) as well: Es+Fr, Tr+Fr and Mn+Fr  We simply provide the most basic many-to-one multilingual baselines here, and leave the full exploration of the best configurations to future work  Finally, we note that for some language pairs, absolute BLEU numbers are relatively low as we restrict model training to the supervised data  We encourage the community to improve upon those baselines, for example by leveraging semi-supervised training 
Baseline Results ::: Multi-Speaker Evaluation
In CoVoST, large portion of transcripts are covered by multiple speakers with different genders, accents and age groups  Besides the standard corpus-level BLEU scores, we also want to evaluate model output variance on the same content (transcript) but different speakers  We hence propose to group samples (and their sentence BLEU scores) by transcript, and then calculate average per-group mean and average coefficient of variation defined as follows:
and
where $G$ is the set of sentence BLEU scores grouped by transcript and $G^{\prime } = \lbrace g | g\in G, |g|>1, \textrm {Mean}(g) > 0 \rbrace $ 
$\textrm {BLEU}_{MS}$ provides a normalized quality score as oppose to corpus-level BLEU or unnormalized average of sentence BLEU  And $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ is a standardized measure of model stability against different speakers (the lower the better)  Table TABREF24 shows the $\textrm {BLEU}_{MS}$ and $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ of our ST models on CoVoST test set  We see that German and Persian have the worst $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ (least stable) given their rich speaker diversity in the test set and relatively small train set (see also Figure FIGREF6 and Table TABREF2)  Dutch also has poor $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ because of the lack of training data  Multilingual models are consistantly more stable on low-resource languages  Ru+Fr, Tr+Fr, Fa+Fr and Zh+Fr even have better $\textrm {CoefVar}_{MS}$ than all individual languages 
Conclusion
We introduce a multilingual speech-to-text translation corpus, CoVoST, for 11 languages into English, diversified with over 11,000 speakers and over 60 accents  We also provide baseline results, including, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end many-to-one multilingual model for spoken language translation  CoVoST is free to use with a CC0 license, and the additional Tatoeba evaluation samples are also CC-licensed 

ground_truth: a sample of  29,794 wikipedia articles and 2,794 arXiv papers 

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. Do they test their framework performance on commonly used language pairs, such as English-to-German?
Context 2: Introduction
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has shown its effectiveness in translation tasks when NMT systems perform best in recent machine translation campaigns BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   Compared to phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) which is basically an ensemble of different features trained and tuned separately, NMT directly modeling the translation relationship between source and target sentences  Unlike SMT, NMT does not require much linguistic information and large monolingual data to achieve good performances 
An NMT consists of an encoder which recursively reads and represents the whole source sentence into a context vector and a recurrent decoder which takes the context vector and its previous state to predict the next target word  It is then trained in an end-to-end fashion to learn parameters which maximizes the likelihood between the outputs and the references  Recently, attention-based NMT has been featured in most state-of-the-art systems  First introduced by BIBREF2 , attention mechanism is integrated in decoder side as feedforward layers  It allows the NMT to decide which source words should take part in the predicting process of the next target words  It helps to improve NMTs significantly  Nevertheless, since the attention mechanism is specific to a particular source sentence and the considering target word, it is also specific to particular language pairs 
Some recent work has focused on extending the NMT framework to multilingual scenarios  By training such network using parallel corpora in number of different languages, NMT could benefit from additional information embedded in a common semantic space across languages  Basically, the proposed NMT are required to employ multiple encoders or multiple decoders to deal with multilinguality  Furthermore, in order to avoid the tight dependency of the attention mechanism to specific language pairs, they also need to modify their architecture to combine either the encoders or the attention layers  These modifications are specific to the purpose of the tasks as well  Thus, those multilingual NMTs are more complicated, much more free parameters to learn and more difficult to perform standard trainings compared to the original NMT 
In this paper, we introduce a unified approach to seamlessly extend the original NMT to multilingual settings  Our approach allows us to integrate any language in any side of the encoder-decoder architecture with only one encoder and one decoder for all the languages involved  Moreover, it is not necessary to do any network modification to enable attention mechanism in our NMT systems  We then apply our proprosed framework in two demanding scenarios: under-resourced translation and zero-resourced translation  The results show that bringing multilinguality to NMT helps to improve individual translations  With some insightful analyses of the results, we set our goal toward a fully multilingual NMT framework 
The paper starts with a detailed introduction to attention-based NMT  In Section SECREF3 , related work about multi-task NMT is reviewed  Section SECREF5 describes our proposed approach and thorough comparisons to the related work  It is followed by a section of evaluating our systems in two aforementioned scenarios, in which different strategies have been employed under a unified approach (Section SECREF4 )  Finally, the paper ends with conclusion and future work 
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 0 International License  License details: http://creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/
Neural Machine Translation: Background
An NMT system consists of an encoder which automatically learns the characteristics of a source sentence into fix-length context vectors and a decoder that recursively combines the produced context vectors with the previous target word to generate the most probable word from a target vocabulary 
More specifically, a bidirectional recurrent encoder reads every words INLINEFORM0 of a source sentence INLINEFORM1 and encodes a representation INLINEFORM2 of the sentence into a fixed-length vector INLINEFORM3 concatinated from those of the forward and backward directions: INLINEFORM4
Here INLINEFORM0 is the one-hot vector of the word INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 is the word embedding matrix which is shared across the source words  INLINEFORM3 is the recurrent unit computing the current hidden state of the encoder based on the previous hidden state  INLINEFORM4 is then called an annotation vector, which encodes the source sentence up to the time INLINEFORM5 from both forward and backward directions  Recurrent units in NMT can be a simple recurrent neural network unit (RNN), a Long Short-Term Memory unit (LSTM) BIBREF3 or a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) BIBREF4
Similar to the encoder, the recurrent decoder generates one target word INLINEFORM0 to form a translated target sentence INLINEFORM1 in the end  At the time INLINEFORM2 , it takes the previous hidden state of the decoder INLINEFORM3 , the previous embedded word representation INLINEFORM4 and a time-specific context vector INLINEFORM5 as inputs to calculate the current hidden state INLINEFORM6 : INLINEFORM7
Again, INLINEFORM0 is the recurrent activation function of the decoder and INLINEFORM1 is the shared word embedding matrix of the target sentences  The context vector INLINEFORM2 is calculated based on the annotation vectors from the encoder  Before feeding the annotation vectors into the decoder, an attention mechanism is set up in between, in order to choose which annotation vectors should contribute to the predicting decision of the next target word  Intuitively, a relevance between the previous target word and the annotation vectors can be used to form some attention scenario  There exists several ways to calculate the relevance as shown in BIBREF5 , but what we describe here follows the proposed method of BIBREF2 DISPLAYFORM0
In BIBREF2 , this attention mechanism, originally called alignment model, has been employed as a simple feedforward network with the first layer is a learnable layer via INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2   The relevance scores INLINEFORM3 are then normalized into attention weights INLINEFORM4 and the context vector INLINEFORM5 is calculated as the weighted sum of all annotation vectors INLINEFORM6   Depending on how much attention the target word at time INLINEFORM7 put on the source states INLINEFORM8 , a soft alignment is learned  By being employed this way, word alignment is not a latent variable but a parametrized function, making the alignment model differentiable  Thus, it could be trained together with the whole architecture using backpropagation 
One of the most severe problems of NMT is handling of the rare words, which are not in the short lists of the vocabularies, i e  out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words, or do not appear in the training set at all  In BIBREF6 , the rare target words are copied from their aligned source words after the translation  This heuristic works well with OOV words and named entities but unable to translate unseen words  In BIBREF7 , their proposed NMT models have been shown to not only be effective on reducing vocabulary sizes but also have the ability to generate unseen words  This is achieved by segmenting the rare words into subword units and translating them  The state-of-the-art translation systems essentially employ subword NMT BIBREF7  
Universal Encoder and Decoder for Multilingual Neural Machine Translation
While the majority of previous research has focused on improving the performance of NMT on individual language pairs with individual NMT systems, recent work has started investigating potential ways to conduct the translation involved in multiple languages using a single NMT system  The possible reason explaining these efforts lies on the unique architecture of NMT  Unlike SMT, NMT consists of separated neural networks for the source and target sides, or the encoder and decoder, respectively  This allows these components to map a sentence in any language to a representation in an embedding space which is believed to share common semantics among the source languages involved  From that shared space, the decoder, with some implicit or explicit relevant constraints, could transform the representation into a concrete sentence in any desired language  In this section, we review some related work on this matter  We then describe a unified approach toward an universal attention-based NMT scheme  Our approach does not require any architecture modification and it can be trained to learn a minimal number of parameters compared to the other work 
Related Work
By extending the solution of sequence-to-sequence modeling using encoder-decoder architectures to multi-task learning, Luong2016 managed to achieve better performance on some INLINEFORM0 tasks such as translation, parsing and image captioning compared to individual tasks  Specifically in translation, the work utilizes multiple encoders to translate from multiple languages, and multiple decoders to translate to multiple languages  In this view of multilingual translation, each language in source or target side is modeled by one encoder or decoder, depending on the side of the translation  Due to the natural diversity between two tasks in that multi-task learning scenario, e g  translation and parsing, it could not feature the attention mechanism although it has proven its effectiveness in NMT  There exists two directions which proposed for multilingual translation scenarios where they leverage the attention mechanism  The first one is indicated in the work from BIBREF8 , where it introduce an one-to-many multilingual NMT system to translates from one source language into multiple target languages  Having one source language, the attention mechanism is then handed over to the corresponding decoder  The objective function is changed to adapt to multilingual settings  In testing time, the parameters specific to a desired language pair are used to perform the translation 
Firat2016 proposed another approach which genuinely delivers attention-based NMT to multilingual translation  As in BIBREF9 , their approach utilizes one encoder per source language and one decoder per target language for many-to-many translation tasks  Instead of a quadratic number of independent attention layers, however, one single attention mechanism is integrated into their NMT, performing an affine transformation between the hidden layer of INLINEFORM0 source languages and that one of INLINEFORM1 target languages  It is required to change their architecture to accomodate such a complicated shared attention mechanism 
In a separate effort to achieve multilingual NMT, the work of Zoph2016 leverages available parallel data from other language pairs to help reducing possible ambiguities in the translation process into a single target language  They employed the multi-source attention-based NMT in a way that only one attention mechanism is required despite having multiple encoders  To achieve this, the outputs of the encoders were combined before feeding to the attention layer  They implemented two types of encoder combination; One is adding a non-linear layer on the concatenation of the encoders' hidden states  The other is using a variant of LSTM taking the respective gate values from the individual LSTM units of the encoders  As a result, the combined hidden states contain information from both encoders , thus encode the common semantic of the two source languages 
Universal Encoder and Decoder
Inspired by the multi-source NMT as additional parallel data in several languages are expected to benefit single translations, we aim to develop a NMT-based approach toward an universal framework to perform multilingual translation  Our solution features two treatments: 1) Coding the words in different languages as different words in the language-mixed vocabularies and 2) Forcing the NMT to translating a representation of source sentences into the sentences in a desired target language 
Language-specific Coding  When the encoder of a NMT system considers words across languages as different words, with a well-chosen architecture, it is expected to be able to learn a good representation of the source words in an embedding space in which words carrying similar meaning would have a closer distance to each others than those are semantically different  This should hold true when the words have the same or similar surface form, such as (@de@Obama; @en@Obama) or (@de@Projektion; @en@projection)  This should also hold true when the words have the same or similar meaning across languages, such as (@en@car; @en@automobile) or (@de@Flussufer; @en@bank)  Our encoder then acts similarly to the one of multi-source approach BIBREF10 , collecting additional information from other sources for better translations, but with a much simpler embedding function  Unlike them, we need only one encoder, so we could reduce the number of parameters to learn  Furthermore, we neither need to change the network architecture nor depend on which recurrent unit (GRU, LSTM or simple RNN) is currently using in the encoder 
We could apply the same trick to the target sentences and thus enable many-to-many translation capability of our NMT system  Similar to the multi-target translation BIBREF8 , we exploit further the correlation in semantics of those target sentences across different languages  The main difference between our approach and the work of BIBREF8 is that we need only one decoder for all target languages  Given one encoder for multiple source languages and one decoder for multiple target languages, it is trivial to incorporate the attention mechanism as in the case of a regular NMT for single language translation  In training, the attention layers were directed to learn relevant alignments between words in specific language pair and forward the produced context vector to the decoder  Now we rely totally on the network to learn good alignments between source and target sides  In fact, giving more information, our system are able to form nice alignments 
In comparison to other research that could perform complete multi-task learning, e g  the work from BIBREF9 or the approach proposed by BIBREF11 , our method is able to accommodate the attention layers seemlessly and easily  It also draws a clear distinction from those works in term of the complexity of the whole network: considerably less parameters to learn, thus reduces overfitting, with a conventional attention mechanism and a standard training procedure 
Target Forcing  While language-specific coding allows us to implement a multilingual attention-based NMT, there are two issues we have to consider before training the network  The first is that the number of rare words would increase in proportion with the number of languages involved  This might be solved by applying a rare word treatment method with appropriate awareness of the vocabularies' size  The second one is more problematic: Ambiguity level in the translation process definitely increases due to the additional introduction of words having the same or similar meaning across languages at both source and target sides  We deal with the problem by explicitly forcing the attention and translation to the direction that we prefer, expecting the information would limit the ambiguity to the scope of one language instead of all target languages  We realize this idea by adding at the beginning and at the end of every source sentences a special symbol indicating the language they would be translated into  For example, in a multilingual NMT, when a source sentence is German and the target language is English, the original sentence (already language-specific coded) is:
@de@darum @de@geht @de@es @de@in @de@meinem @de@Vortrag
Now when we force it to be translated into English, the target-forced sentence becomes:
<E> @de@darum @de@geht @de@es @de@in @de@meinem @de@Vortrag <E>
Due to the nature of recurrent units used in the encoder and decoder, in training, those starting symbols encourage the network learning the translation of following target words in a particular language pair  In testing time, information of the target language we provided help to limit the translated candidates, hence forming the translation in the desired language 
Figure FIGREF8 illustrates the essence of our approach  With two steps in the preprocessing phase, namely language-specific coding and target forcing, we are able to employ multilingual attention-based NMT without any special treatment in training such a standard architecture  Our encoder and attention-enable decoder can be seen as a shared encoder and decoder across languages, or an universal encoder and decoder  The flexibitily of our approach allow us to integrate any language into source or target side  As we will see in Section SECREF4 , it has proven to be extremely helpful not only in low-resourced scenarios but also in translation of well-resourced language pairs as it provides a novel way to make use of large monolingual corpora in NMT 
Evaluation
In this section, we describe the evaluation of our proposed approach in comparisons with the strong baselines using NMT in two scenarios: the translation of an under-resource language pair and the translation of a language pair that does not exist any paralled data at all 
Experimental Settings
Training Data  We choose WIT3's TED corpus BIBREF12 as the basis of our experiments since it might be the only high-quality parallel data of many low-resourced language pairs  TED is also multilingual in a sense that it includes numbers of talks which are commonly translated into many languages  In addition, we use a much larger corpus provided freely by WMT organizers when we evaluate the impact of our approach in a real machine translation campaign  It includes the paralled corpus extracted from the digital corpus of European Parliament (EPPS), the News Commentary (NC) and the web-crawled parallel data (CommonCrawl)  While the number of sentences in popular TED corpora varies from 13 thousands to 17 thousands, the total number of sentences in those larger corpus is approximately 3 million sentences 
Neural Machine Translation Setup  All experiments have been conducted using NMT framework Nematus, Following the work of Sennrich2016a, subword segmentation is handled in the prepocessing phase using Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE)  Excepts stated clearly in some experiments, we set the number of BPE merging operations at 39500 on the joint of source and target data  When training all NMT systems, we take out the sentence pairs exceeding 50-word length and shuffle them inside every minibatch  Our short-list vocabularies contain 40,000 most frequent words while the others are considered as rare words and applied the subword translation  We use an 1024-cell GRU layer and 1000-dimensional embeddings with dropout at every layer with the probability of 0 2 in the embedding and hidden layers and 0 1 in the input and ourput layers  We trained our systems using gradient descent optimization with Adadelta BIBREF13 on minibatches of size 80 and the gradient is rescaled whenever its norm exceed 1 0  All the trainings last approximately seven days if the early-stopping condition could not be reached  At a certain time, an external evaluation script on BLEU BIBREF14 is conducted on a development set to decide the early-stopping condition  This evaluation script has also being used to choose the model archiving the best BLEU on the development set instead of the maximal loglikelihood between the translations and target sentences while training  In translation, the framework produces INLINEFORM0 -best candidates and we then use a beam search with the beam size of 12 to get the best translation 
Under-resourced Translation
First, we consider the translation for an under-resourced pair of languages  Here a small portion of the large parallel corpus for English-German is used as a simulation for the scenario where we do not have much parallel data: Translating texts in English to German  We perform language-specific coding in both source and target sides  By accommodating the German monolingual data as an additional input (German INLINEFORM0 German), which we called the mix-source approach, we could enrich the training data in a simple, natural way  Given this under-resourced situation, it could help our NMT obtain a better representation of the source side, hence, able to learn the translation relationship better  Including monolingual data in this way might also improve the translation of some rare word types such as named entities  Furthermore, as the ultimate goal of our work, we would like to investigate the advantages of multilinguality in NMT  We incorporate a similar portion of French-German parallel corpus into the English-German one  As discussed in Section SECREF5 , it is expected to help reducing the ambiguity in translation between one language pair since it utilizes the semantic context provided by the other source language  We name this mix-multi-source 
Table TABREF16 summarizes the performance of our systems measured in BLEU on two test sets, tst2013 and tst2014  Compared to the baseline NMT system which is solely trained on TED English-German data, our mix-source system achieves a considerable improvement of 2 6 BLEU points on tst2013 and 2 1 BLEU points on and tst2014   Adding French data to the source side and their corresponding German data to the target side in our mix-multi-source system also help to gain 2 2 and 1 6 BLEU points more on tst2013 tst2014, respectively  We observe a better improvement from our mix-source system compared to our mix-multi-source system  We speculate the reason that the mix-source encoder utilize the same information shared in two languages while the mix-multi-source receives and processes similar information in the other language but not necessarily the same  We might validate this hypothesis by comparing two systems trained on a common English-German-French corpus of TED  We put it in our future work's plan 
As we expected Figure FIGREF19 shows how different words in different languages can be close in the shared space after being learned to translate into a common language  We extract the word embeddings from the encoder of the mix-multi-source (En,Fr INLINEFORM0 De,De) after training, remove the language-specific codes (@en@ and @fr@)and project the word vectors to the 2D space using t-SNE BIBREF15  
Using large monolingual data in NMT 
A standard NMT system employs parallel data only  While good parallel corpora are limited in number, getting monolingual data of an arbitrary language is trivial  To make use of German monolingual corpus in an English INLINEFORM0 German NMT system, sennrich2016b built a separate German INLINEFORM1 English NMT using the same parallel corpus, then they used that system to translate the German monolingual corpus back to English, forming a synthesis parallel data  gulcehre2015 trained another RNN-based language model to score the monolingual corpus and integrate it to the NMT system through shallow or deep fusion  Both methods requires to train separate systems with possibly different hyperparameters for each  Conversely, by applying mix-source method to the big monolingual data, we need to train only one network  We mix the TED parallel corpus and the substantial monolingual corpus (EPPS+NC+CommonCrawl) and train a mix-source NMT system from those data 
The first result is not encouraging when its performance is even worse than the baseline NMT which is trained on the small parallel data only  Not using the same information in the source side, as we discussed in case of mix-multi-source strategy, could explain the degrading in performance of such a system  But we believe that the magnitude and unbalancing of the corpus are the main reasons  The data contains nearly four millions sentences but only around twenty thousands of them (0 5%) are the genuine parallel data  As a quick attempt, after we get the model with that big data, we continue training on the real parallel corpus for some more epochs  When this adaptation is applied, our system brings an improvement of +1 52 BLEU on tst2013 and +1 06 BLEU on tst2014 (Table TABREF21 ) 
Zero-resourced Translation
Among low-resourced scenarios, zero-resourced translation task stands in an extreme level  A zero-resourced translation task is one of the most difficult situation when there is no parallel data between the translating language pair  To the best of our knowledge, there have been yet existed a published work about using NMT for zero-resourced translation tasks up to now  In this section, we extend our strategies using the proposed multilingual NMT approach as first attempts to this extreme situation 
We employ language-specific coding and target forcing in a strategy called bridge  Unlike the strategies used in under-resourced translation task, bridge is an entire many-to-many multilingual NMT  Simulating a zero-resourced German INLINEFORM0 French translation task given the available German-English and English-French parallel corpora, after applying language-specific coding and target forcing for each corpus, we mix those data with an English-English data as a “bridge” creating some connection between German and French  We also propose a variant of this strategy that we incorporate French-French data  And we call it universal 
We evaluate bridge and universal systems on two German INLINEFORM0 French test sets  They are compared to a direct system, which is an NMT trained on German INLINEFORM1 French data, and to a pivot system, which essentially consists of two separate NMTs trained to translate from German to English and English to French  The direct system should not exist in a real zero-resourced situation  We refer it as the perfect system for comparison purpose only  In case of the pivot system, to generate a translated text in French from a German sentence, we first translate it to English, then the output sentence is fed to the English INLINEFORM2 German NMT system to obtain the French translation  Since there are more than two languages involved in those systems, we increase the number of BPE merging operations proportionally in order to reduce the number of rare words in such systems  We do not expect our proposed systems to perform well with this primitive way of building direct translating connections since this is essentially a difficult task  We report the performance of those systems in Table TABREF23  
Unsupprisingly, both bridge and universal systems perform worse than the pivot one  We consider two possible reasons:
Our target forcing mechanism is moderately primitive  Since the process is applied after language-specific coding, the target forcing symbol is the same for all source sentences in every languages  Thus, the forcing strength might not be enough to guide the decision of the next words  Once the very first word is translated into a word in wrong language, the following words tend to be translated into that wrong language again  Table TABREF24 shows some statistics of the translated words and sentences in wrong language 
Balancing of the training corpus  Although it is not severe as in the case of mix-source system for large monolingual data, the limited number of sentences in target language can affect the training  The difference of 1 07 BLEU points between bridge and universal might explain this assumption as we added more target data (French) in universal strategy, thus reducing the unbalance in training 
Those issues would be addressed in our following future work toward the multilingual attention-based NMT 
Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we present our first attempts in building a multilingual Neural Machine Translation framework  By treating words in different languages as different words and force the attention and translation to the direction of desired target language, we are able to employ attention-enable NMT toward a multilingual translation system  Our proposed approach alleviates the need of complicated architecture re-designing when accommodating attention mechanism  In addition, the number of free parameters to learn in our network does not go beyond that magnitute of a single NMT system  With its universality, our approach has shown its effectiveness in an under-resourced translation task with considerable improvements  In addition, the approach has achieved interesting and promising results when applied in the translation task that there is no direct parallel corpus between source and target languages 
Nevertheless, there are issues that we can continue working on to address in future work  A more balancing data would be helpful for this framework  The mechanism of forcing the NMT system to the right target language could be improved  We could conduct more detailed analyses of the various strategies under the framework to show its universarity 

ground_truth: Yes

Yes

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How is the quality of the data empirically evaluated? 
Context 4:  Incorporating this extra information improves the translation task  The large number of shared word types between the source and target sentences indicates that sharing the representation between them is beneficial 
Methods ::: Shakespearizing Poetic Captions ::: Seq2Seq with Attention
We use a sequence-to-sequence model which consists of a single layer unidrectional LSTM encoder and a single layer LSTM decoder and pre-trained retrofitted word embeddings shared between source and target sentences  We experimented with two different types of attention: global attention BIBREF9, in which the model makes use of the output from the encoder and decoder for the current time step only, and Bahdanau attention BIBREF10, where computing attention requires the output of the decoder from the prior time step  We found that global attention performs better in practice for our task of text style transfer 
Methods ::: Shakespearizing Poetic Captions ::: Seq2Seq with a Pointer Network
Since a pair of corresponding Shakespeare and modern English sentences have significant vocabulary overlap we extend the sequence-to-sequence model mentioned above using pointer networks BIBREF11 that provide location based attention and have been used to enable copying of tokens directly from the input  Moreover, there are lot of proper nouns and rare words which might not be predicted by a vanilla sequence to sequence model 
Methods ::: Shakespearizing Poetic Captions ::: Prediction
For both seq2seq models, we use the attention matrices returned at each decoder time step during inference, to compute the next word in the translated sequence if the decoder output at the current time step is the UNK token  We replace the UNKs in the target output with the highest aligned, maximum attention, source word  The seq2seq model with global attention gives the best results with an average target BLEU score of 29 65 on the style transfer dataset, compared with an average target BLEU score of 26 97 using the seq2seq model with pointer networks 
Results
We perform a qualitative analysis of the Shakespearean prose generated for the input paintings  We conducted a survey, in which we presented famous paintings including those shown in Figures FIGREF1 and FIGREF10 and the corresponding Shakespearean prose generated by the model, and asked 32 students to rate them on the basis of content, creativity and similarity to Shakespearean style on a Likert scale of 1-5  Figure FIGREF12 shows the result of our human evaluation 
The average content score across the paintings is 3 7 which demonstrates that the prose generated is relevant to the painting  The average creativity score is 3 9 which demonstrates that the model captures more than basic objects in the painting successfully using poetic clues in the scene  The average style score is 3 9 which demonstrates that the prose generated is perceived to be in the style of Shakespeare 
We also perform a quantitative analysis of style transfer by generating BLEU scores for the model output using the style transfer dataset  The variation of the BLEU scores with the source sentence lengths is shown in Figure FIGREF11  As expected, the BLEU scores decrease with increase in source sentence lengths 
Results ::: Implementation
All models were trained on Google Colab with a single GPU using Python 3 6 and Tensorflow 2 0  The number of hidden units for the encoder and decoder is 1,576 and 256 for seq2seq with global attention and seq2seq with pointer networks respectively  Adam optimizer was used with the default learning rate of 0 001  The model was trained for 25 epochs  We use pre-trained retrofitted word embeddings of dimension 192 
Results ::: Limitations
Since we do not have an end-to-end dataset, the generated English poem may not work well with Shakespeare style transfer as shown in Figure FIGREF12 for "Starry Night" with a low average content score  This happens when the style transfer dataset does not have similar words in the training set of sentences  A solution would be to expand the style transfer dataset, for a better representation of the poem data 
Results ::: Conclusions and Future Work
In conclusion, combining two pipelines with an intermediate representation works well in practice  We observe that a CNN-RNN based image-to-poem net combined with a seq2seq model with parallel text corpus for text style transfer synthesizes Shakespeare-style prose for a given painting  For the seq2seq model used, we observe that it performs better in practice using global attention as compared with local attention  We make our models and code publicly available BIBREF12  In future work we would like to experiment with GANs in the absence of non-parallel datasets, so that we can use varied styles for text style transfer  We would also like to experiment with cross aligned auto-encoders, which form a latent content representation, to efficiently separate style and content 

ground_truth: Validated transcripts were sent to professional translators., various sanity checks to the translations,  sanity check the overlaps of train, development and test sets

computed sentence-level BLEU, We manually inspected examples where the source transcript was identical to the translation, measured the perplexity of the translations, computed the ratio of English characters in the translations, calculate similarity scores between transcripts and translations