Papers › Domain Robustness in Neural Machine Translation

Domain Robustness in Neural Machine Translation

8 Nov 2019AMTA 2020 10arXiv:1911.03109archive 2025-07-28

Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, Rico Sennrich

Translating text that diverges from the training domain is a key challenge for machine translation. Domain robustness---the generalization of models to unseen test domains---is low for both statistical (SMT) and neural machine translation (NMT). In this paper, we study the performance of SMT and NMT models on out-of-domain test sets. We find that in unknown domains, SMT and NMT suffer from very different problems: SMT systems are mostly adequate but not fluent, while NMT systems are mostly fluent, but not adequate. For NMT, we identify such hallucinations (translations that are fluent but unrelated to the source) as a key reason for low domain robustness. To mitigate this problem, we empirically compare methods that are reported to improve adequacy or in-domain robustness in terms of their effectiveness at improving domain robustness. In experiments on German to English OPUS data, and German to Romansh (a low-resource setting) we find that several methods improve domain robustness. While those methods do lead to higher BLEU scores overall, they only slightly increase the adequacy of translations compared to SMT.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

11 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ZurichNLP/sockeye. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections