Neural-Based Machine Translation System
Outperforming Statistical Phrase-Based Machine
Translation for Low-Resource Languages
Muskaan Singh1 ,Ravinder Kumar2 , Inderveer Chana3
1,2,3
Language Engineering and Machine Learning Research Lab, CSED
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology(TIET)
Patiala, India
muskaan singh@thapar.edu, ravinder@thapar.edu, inderveer@thapar.edu
Abstract—Natural Language Processing(NLP) involves the devel-
opment of computational models that aid in the development of
automated tools for processing and generating natural language.
Human developing these computational models require deep
insight of linguistic knowledge and are a time consuming process.
Hence, to automate this process and accelerate the computational
science we use a data-driven approach i.e Statistical learning
and Deep Learning. For devolving and sharing of information
in natural language and making it accessible in other natu-
ral languages, Machine Translation(MT) is entailed. It is an
application of NLP. Sanskrit being ’father of informatics’ [1]
was considered as ”lingua franca” of world intellectuals [2].
It is also an important language in the Indo-European family
and considered as truly ”donor” language of India. It has vast
knowledge reserves in different discipline of studies such as
Ayurveda, astronomy, literature etc. MT makes this rich language
available to others with help of the computer. We have proposed
and presented the prominent Deep Neural-based MT system for
translation of Sanskrit to Hindi. We also present a comparison
of Neural MT outperforming Statistical baseline system for this
language pair.
Index Terms—Neural Machine Translation, Statistical Machine
Translation, Keras,LSTM,MT-Hub, Sanskrit,Hindi
I. I NTRODUCTION
Natural Language Processing(NLP) involves the development
of computational models that aid in the development of
automated tools for processing and generating natural lan-
guage. Human developing these computational models require
deep insight of linguistic knowledge and is time-consuming
process. Hence, to automate this process and accelerate the
computational science we use a data-driven approach i.e Statis-
tical learning and Deep Learning. NLP involves technological
motivation for developing intelligent computer systems such
as machine translation, understanding printed and handwritten
text, text analysis, speech understanding system, text under-
standing system and natural language interface to database etc.
There is linguistic and cognitive motivation for development
of this approach. It has various applications such as Machine
Translation(MT), Text summarization, Information extraction
etc. Machine Translation is one such applications of Natural
Language Processing(NLP). It aims to translate one natural
978-1-7281-3591-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
language i.e Source text into other natural language i.e Target
text. Various approaches can be followed to automate this
process of translation such as linguistic rich approach i.e
Rule-based [3] involving Transfer-based mechanism [4] and
Interlingua mechanism [5] to corpus-based approach that is
entirely based on corpus i.e Statistical Phrase-based [6] and
Neural-based [7]. Even there are some approaches that is less
used nowadays i.e Example-based approach [8], Knowledge-
based [9].
According to the census of India 2018, India States and Union
territories Sanskrit is mother tongue of 24,821 and Hindi of
52,83,47,193 i.e 43% of total languages in India. Sanskrit is
considered as the mother or ’donor’ of all Indian languages
with holding a rich grammar confined by Panini near 2500
years ago formulating 3,949 rules, which were extended later
on.Sanskrit has strongest and simple non-ambiguous grammar.
Reasons for choosing Sanskrit for translation purpose is the
richness of scientific literature with extensiveness and com-
prehensive analysis, structured approach and the traditional
grammar. Many people have attempted to write a grammar
for Sanskrit language using the Paninian framework and used
it to develop translation system [10]. The Panini focused on
decoding the information contained in the language string of
particularly given input language by Karaka(syntax-semantic)
relations and not thematic roles [2]. It also highlights the
importance of case markers, postpositions and word-order. The
central element of semantic model in Paninian framework is
that every verbal root (dhaatu) denotes an action consisting of
activity (or vyaapara), and a result (or phala). The result is a
state which is reached after completion of an action. An activ-
ity consists of steps that are performed by different participants
or Karakas involved in action. The concept of Karaka relation
is central theme to Paninian grammar. These Karaka relations
are referred as syntactic-semantic relations, and on surface
level, it highlights syntactic information and also captures
semantic information at a deeper level. The Sanskrit grammar
is termed as ’Father of Informatics’ as it builds a relationship
between speech and utterance of speaker and meaning derived
by listener. Hence, primary objective of Paninian Grammar is
to form a theory of human natural language communication.
Sanskrit and Hindi belong to same Indo-Aryan family. They
both have structural and lexical similarity as Hindi inherits
from Sanskrit. Sanskrit has the rich and structured grammar in
the form of Panini Astadhayayi whereas in Hindi such parallel
grammar does not exist. Therefore, it becomes difficult to
map the divergence between these two languages. The non-
existence of such grammar leads to exceptional cases which
are not covered in linguistic generalizations such as vibhakti
in Hindi. The cases where vibhakti in Sanskrit and Hindi
diverges are optional, Exceptional,Differential, Alternative,
Non-Karaka, Verb and Complex-predicate divergence. Despite
of rich grammar, choosing Sanskrit as a source language is
difficult because parsing fails due to its synthetic nature in
which single word can run upto 32 pages. A lot of work
is required to explore the potential of this language to open
perspectives in computational linguistic domain. There are
some systems which are confined to specific domains and too
short sentences and phrases. Due to the morphological richness
of Sanskrit, it becomes a challenging task in MTS. There
are some limited systems for English to Sanskrit translation.
However, more work in this field is highly desirable.
A. Contribution
Contribution of this paper includes:
• A novel Deep learning framework has been developed to
train the MT system for Sanskrit to Hindi language.
• A Parallel corpus of Sanskrit-Hindi with 102,760 parallel
sentences was developed.
• Training the translation system on Statistical-Phrase
based platforms i.e Moses and MT Hub.
• Empirically proving the performance of proposed ap-
proach based on automatic evaluation measure i.e BLEU.
• Comparative analysis of Neural MT outperforming the
traditional baseline statistical phrase based system. We
have also formulated case study of previous corpus-
based approaches to Sanskrit-Hindi MT and extended
their approach.
B. Paper Organization
The paper remaining is organized in following sections as,
Section 2 presents background of work performed for pro-
cessing Sanskrit language to other languages and for Sanskrit-
Hindi translation. An elaborate proposed methodology with
statistical phrase-based training and deep Recurrent Neural
Network(RNN) is described in Section 3 followed by result
analysis in Section 4 and finally Section 5 concludes the paper
along with future Scope.
II. BACKGROUND
India is a country of vast language diversity, with more than
1.3 billion people.There are 29 major languages written in
13 scripts, Sanskrit being the origin of all almost all Indian
languages. Thus, there is a need to provide a translation of
Sanskrit language to other languages. One of the primary
requirement in Sanskrit translation domain is to translate
the life-transforming stories(epics), Vedas, etc. to make them
accessible in other languages. A major issue which arises in
the implementation of Sanskrit based MTS is the approach to
develop MTS. As currently, the Sanskrit-based systems are
using a dictionary or rule-based approaches which are not
easily extendable and are time-consuming. The challenging
task in translation field for Sanskrit is its morphologically
rich features that consist of various modules, resources, and
tools. Thus, it is a complex system. Sanskrit has richness
of scientific literature with in-depth analysis for cognitive
knowledge description. Sanskrit has extendability to other
languages. The phonetic basis of the Sanskrit language is
useful for speech analysis as well [11]. Research in the field
of Sanskrit machine translation is in early stages. Some of
the developed systems to provide computation and translation
of Sanskrit language include Sanskrit Translator(2009) which
[12] uses example based technique to translate from English
to Sanskrit using various different modules. Merging Rule-
based approach with Artificial Neural Network (2010) by
[13]for translating English to Sanskrit language was devel-
oped. English to Sanskrit Machine Translation and Synthe-
sizer System(2010) by [14] using dictionary based approach
which includes speech synthezier in translation process was
developed. English to Sanskrit Machine Translator system
was formed (2010) by [15] using rule based approach and
modules such as lexical parser, semantic Mapper, translator
and composer. [16] formed a complete english to Sanskrit
speech translation system. It was later enhanced in (2012)
by [17] merging rule-based approach. E-Trans system (2012)
by [18] suggests using rule based approach from English to
Sanskrit using synchronous context free grammar.The results
are quite promising for small and large sentences. A system for
translating Sanskrit to English,i.e TranSish(2014) by [19] uses
rule-based approach but only for present tense.This system
was extended for other tense sentences. These research work
were useful for sharing worldwide knowledge of Sanskrit
with traditional translation approaches. Recent approaches to
Sanskrit language translation were performed using statistical
based approach such as English to Sanskrit Machine Translator
with Ubiquitous Application (2012) by [20]. It uses features
like phrase translation probability, inverse phrase translation
probability, lexical weighting probability, phrase penalty, lan-
guage model probability, distance based distortion model,
word penalty to train the system. All of this research work
were based on processing Sanskrit language to English or
vice-versa. There was an ample amount of work for Sanskrit
to Hindi translation including a rule-based system and a
statistical-based system.
The work for Sanskrit to Hindi MT system include [21]
in 2015 for translating children stories(e-learning content,
multimedia for Kids) using rule-based approach. It will be
extended to yoga and Ayurveda domain.Though this is not yet
available as it is under progress. Another system of translation
and computational tools of Sanskrit i.e Samsaadhani(2009) by
 TABLE I speed approximately 2500 words per second. This speed is
PARALLEL AND M ONOLINGUAL DATASET FROM DIFFERENT DOMAINS not possible for normal systems because in this one epoch
Domain Parallel Corpus Monolingual Corpus will take approximately two hours to run. So we use a highly
News 25,000 202,269 configured GPU along with NVIDIA Geforce GTX 980 GPU
Health care NA 5,000 as we trained the system for update of 20 times termed as
Tourism NA 15,395
Literature 28,760 50,000 ’epochs’ of size 64 sentences each time.
Wikipedia NA 259,305
Judicial domain NA 152,776 C. Statistical Phrase-Based Model for Sanskrit to Hindi
General Domain 49,000 36,000
Translation on Moses and MT-Hub
TABLE II Statistical MT has been in research since 1980’s, though
A DDITIONAL M ONOLINGUAL DATASET
later phrase-based translation exhibited better performance
# Lines 221528 [32]. Phrase-based model were based on phrase alignment
#Words 2849514 template [33] and [34] suggested imposing syntactic structure
#Characters 38413350
#Total 2.8 Million
on phrases was not effective.The phrase translation model is
based on Baye’s Noisy channel using Language model and
Translation Model result in translation probability given a
[22] [23] [24] for translating Sanskrit to Hindi also uses rule- source sentence in Sanskrit(s) Language and Target sentence
based linguistic approach. Recent attempts using statistical in Hindi(h) Language.
approach for translating Sanskrit to Hindi have been proposed. argmaxebest P (s|h) = argmaxe p(s|h)p(h) (1)
The system is trained on MT-Hub platform [25] and on Moses
[26] resulting in significant improvement in Sanskrit language where p(h) is n-gram Language model trained on Monolingual
computations. In our work, we have extended this previous Hindi corpus , p(s|h)is Translation model trained on parallel
work, on statistical platforms of Moses and MT-Hub using corpus of Sanskrit-Hindi and mathematically calculated as,
more parallel data. We have also implemented Neural MT Y
I

system using keras on Tensorflow platform details have been p(s−I −I

included in further section.
III. P ROPOSED M ETHODOLOGY
A. Dataset
Initially, parallel and monolingual corpus was created with
different domains details have been mentioned in Table:1 and
Table:2. Some of parallel corpus was collected from Indian
Language Corpora Initiative(ILCI) [26] and Department of
Public Health relations [27]. Remaining parallel data was
manually created of Srimad Bhagavad Geeta. We have trained
Machine Translation System across 3 Platforms i.e MT-Hub
[28], Moses [29] for Statistical Phrase based Machine Transla-
tion and keras [30] with Tensorflow [31] for Neural Machine
Translation.
B. Experimental Setup
After gathering the dataset, system was trained for phrase-
based statistical machine translation system on Moses setup
as well as MT-Hub platform.The model was tuned using a
additional corpus for tuning. Phrase tables were generated on
training parallel corpora for Statistical Machine Translation.
The generated phrase table is merged with the phrase table
from tuning data and test data. Neural-based Machine Trans-
lation System is trained on Keras [30] with Tensorflow [31],
a system for large scale machine learning at its Backend. The
Proposed Neural model is processed through highly configured
core GPU with 32 GB of RAM to achieve a high throughput
1 |h1 ) = φ(s̄i |h̄i )d(starti − endi−1 − 1) (2)
i=1
where d(.)is the distortion probability with arguments starti
starting position of ith and endi−1 ending position of the
(i − 1)t h position of Hindi phrase in Sanskrit Phrase. φ is
phrase translation probability. From the training corpora, most
probable phrases would be chosen as output translation and
handle all ambiguity occurring at translation level. Inorder,
to optimize the translated output it adds word cost Ω for
each generated Hindi word in addition to language model.This
factor biases toward larger output and is usually larger than 1
inorder to optimize performance.
1) Training on Moses: The training on Moses platform [29]
is performed. It provides an complete toolkit for academic
research. It consist of all the components to develop translation
system such as pre-processing of data, building language
model, translation model,Tuning using minimum error rate
training and evaluation of translated output. It is also compat-
ible to external tools such as GIZA++,SRILM,IRSLTM. It is
easy to customize and requires little setup time. We perfomed
the experiment for Sanskrit-Hindi. The input sentence is
fragmented into phrases, assuming uniform probability on all
phrases, each of this phrase is translated into Hindi Language
which is reordered later. The reordering is performed by
distortion joint probability distribution performed on Moses
which follows a sequence of steps. After the creation and
gathering of data, it was pre-processed by 3-step process i.e
tokenization, true-casing and cleaning.
• Tokenization: Meaningful tokens were created by adding
spaces between words and punctuations.
 • True casing: Conversion of initial words to most-probable • Encoder- The model given a source sentence of Sanskrit
casing. The data converted into weight matrices becomes from i = 1......n words as coded into vectors as input,
less sparse on applying true-casing.
• Cleaning: Empty sentences, very long sentence, too short, S = (s1 , s2 , ....sn ), si ∈ RKs (4)
misaligned sentences were removed from the training and as Hindi output translated sentence containing
data. i1.....m words coded as output vector,
The data prepared is converted into format suitable for H = (h1 , h2 , ...hm ), hi ∈ RKh (5)
GIZA++ [35]. It generates two vocabulary files containing
words, integers word identifiers ,word count and converts par- Here, Ks is vocabulary size of source and Kh of target
allel corpus into number. Sentence alignment is performed by language. m and n are the length of sentence. The forward
running GIZA++ in parallel as it is time-consuming process. states for Bidirectional RNN are computed by using
The monolingual corpus is loaded for building the language update, reset and combination gates.
model using IRSLTM [36]. It improves the fluency of the ~ ug~hi−1 )
~ i ) = φ(Wug Esi + U
U pdate gate(ug (6)
translated output. On the other hand, parallel corpus is loaded
to build translation model. It involves alignment of words, ~ i ) = φ(W
Reset Gate(rg ~ rg~hi−1 )
~ rg Ēsi + U (7)
lexical translation, extraction of phrases, scoring of phrases,
reordering model, generation model and configuring model. ~hi = tanh(W
~ Ēsi + U ~ ⊙ ~hi−1 ])
~ [rg (8)
The model created is stored in the system, which is used by
Next state is computed for all the i word vectors of a
decoder. There are few problems with translation model: 1.
sentence,
It is very slow to load 2. Weights used by different models
are not optimized. In order to overcome these problems we ~hi = (1 − U
~ i ⊙ ~hi−1 + ug
~ i ⊙ ~hi ) (9)
perform tuning on the model, training of weights based on Ks
different parallel data. We can then test the system by giving Here,φ is the logistic sigmoid function Ē ∈ Rd× is
any Sanskrit sentence and translated Hindi output and running matrix of word embedding dimension. where d is word
the BLEU script to calculate the translation accuracy i.e 51 embedding dimension and n is the number of hidden
~ ,W
units. W ~ ug , W
~ rg ∈ Rn×d , and U
~,U
~ ug , U
~ rg ∈ Rn×n
2) Training on MT-Hub: We trained Statistical phrase-based The backward states are computed similarly using update,
system on Microsoft Translation Hub [37], a platform for reset and combination gate.
building the statistical machine translation system. It involved,
sequence of steps such as loading the corpus and dictionaries U pdate gateU g i = φ(Wu Ehi + Uu hi−1 ) (10)
and then start the training, which would output the BLEU
Reset Gaterg i = φ(Wrg Ēhi + Urg hi−1 ) (11)
score [38]. It provides an hub of translation through cloud.
After training, we are able to deploy the system, evaluate and hi = tanh(W Ēhi + U [rg ⊙ hi−1 ]) (12)
re-train the system. This platform also provides us with the
option of review and corrections for improving the translation. Next state is computed for all the i word vectors of a
sentence,
hi = (1 − Ui ) ⊙ hi−1 + ug i ⊙ hi (13)
D. Neural Machine Translation for Sanskrit to Hindi
The forward and backward hidden computations are
The proposed model uses Long Short Term Memory units [39] concatenated ~hkh to form an annotation vector (hi =
containing explicit memory state with input, forget and output h1 , h2 , ...hT s ).
gate. it learns long term dependency better and forming a better • Alignment Model- The annotation vector of hidden state
mode. A vector of LSTM cells forming a layer of LSTM. It is hij from the Encoder for source sentence is given for
possible by node value of above layer it , from previous time computation of decoder hidden state Dhi . The context
step value of hidden layer ht−1 . The input value formed by vector computed by alignment model ci which is required
combining weight matrix multiplication of input node W i and for computation of decoder hidden state.
of hidden layer W h
eij = zaT (tanh(Wai dhi−1 + Uai hij )) (14)
cell input = f (W s st + W h ht−1 ) (3) where za is Rn‘ ,Uai = Rn‘×2n ,Wai = Rn‘×n are weight
matrices
exp(eij )
LSTM are trained in same way by unrolling the recurrent αij = PT x (15)
neural network having derivative equal to 1 using back- k=1 exp(eik )
propagation through time. Hence,we compute update function
X
Tx
and with respect to all parameters of model compute gradient ci = αij hj (16)
for objective function. j=1

TABLE III
D IMENSIONALITY OF THE PARAMETERS IN THE MODEL
Parameter Dimensionality
x (Word Embedding) 1000
n (LSTM hidden state) 1000
d(dimension of word embedding) 620
v(Output maxout hidden layer) 500
n‘(alignmen model hidden units) 1000
Ws 32 × 400
Wh 32 × 1
Wug 64 × 400
Wrg 65 × 2
• Decoder- The next hidden state of decoder is computed
with Context vector Ci , previous generated word hi−1
and previous hidden decoder state dhi−1
ugi = φ(Wug Ehi−1 + Uug dhi−1 + Cug ci ) (17)
rgi = φ(Wrg Ehi−1 + Urg dhi−1 + Crg ci ) (18)
d¯hi = tanh(W Ehi−1 + U [rgi ⊙ dhi−1 ] + Cci ) (19)
dhi = (1 − ugi ) ⊙ dhi−1 + ugi ⊙ d¯hi (20)
Here, E is matrix of word embedding target language.
W, Wrg , Wug = Rn×d are weight matrix with n as
number of hidden nodes and m as word embedding
dimension and context matrix as C, Cug , Crg ∈ Rn×2n .
The probability of Hindi word is defined as,
ti = [max(t̄i,2j−1 , t̄i,2j )]Tj=1,..v (21)
prob(hi |dhi , hi−1 , ci ) ≈ exp(hTi W0 ti ) (22)
vector t is computed by Wo = RKh×v weight embedding
matrix of output hidden state, Uo = R2v×n as output weight
matrix and Co = R2v×2n , where v is word embedding
output dimension and n is number of hidden layers. These
computations are formed as maxout hidden layer [40] and deep
output [41]
t̄i = Uo dhi−1 + V0 Ehi−1 + Co ci (23)
Finally, We trained our data set for NMT using Keras
with Tensorflow at its backend. We have used the approach
proposed by [7].For training we require parallel dataset, it
is prepared by cleaning and splitting the dataset. It removes
all white-spaces, punctuations, unicode characters, numerals,
converting uppercase to lowercase etc. These tokens are then
encoded into integers and padded to maximum phrase length.
We convert the input sequence into one-hot embedded output
sequence as model would predict probability of each word
in vocabulary.We used Encoder-decoder LSTM [42] model
for predicting translation. Here, encoder embeddes the input
sequence in front-end model and at backend model decodes
word-by-word. The model defined takes various parameters
stated in Table: III like input and output maximum length,
size,number of phrases as well as memory units.The different
weight matrices used are orthogonal.The matrices used for
alignment are taken with variance = 0.01 and mean = 0
Platform Parallel Corpus Monolingual Corpus BLEU(%)
Moses 102,760 942,273 58%
MT-Hub 102,760 942,273 45%
NMT 145,34,215 NA 60.4%
from Gaussian distribution. Stochastic gradient descent train-
ing with mini-batch of 64 sentences using Adam [43] is
performed to minimizes the categorical loss and automatically
adapt learning of each parameter rate (ρ = 0.95and ǫ = 10−6 ).
We performed normalization for the gradient cost function of
threshold ∈ 1 [44]. After this model was fit to this multi-class
classification problem. We trained the model for 20 epochs for
update equal to longest sentence in mini-batch.The training
data was shuffled after every update inorder to minimize the
error known as normalization of layer. This trained model was
evaluated based on translated output sequence and reference
translation by running BLEU script. All of these three exper-
iment carried out were compared based on BLEU score and
results were shown in section 5.
IV. R ESULT A NALYSIS
To evaluate the performance of this proposed corpus-based
approach on different platforms i.e Moses, MT-hub and Keras
based on BLEU Score as shown in Table 3. The Proposed
system is also compared with previous developed system sahit
[25] [26] as shown in Figure 3. Bleu score is an important
metric used for calculating the accuracy of translated sentences
as compared to the human generated reference translations. It
is not good for shorter translations but it provides accurate
results for longer sentences. Normally BLEU Score values lies
between 0 and 1, simply multiplying it to 100, its percentage
can be calculated. It is observed that higher the BLEU score
value, model is more accurate. Formula of BLEU Score is as
follows:
output length Y
4
BLEU = min(1, )( precisioni )
ref erence length i=1
(24)
We also performed linguistic error analysis and found the sys-
tem was not able to handle the translation cases of compound,
complex, Sandhi and karaka level. Rest, in almost cases trained
systems are producing fluent output.
V. C ONCLUSION
The proposed system is based on corpus approach i.e to
train the data based on corpus to give maximum probabil-
ity. We trained the system across the traditional statistical
phrase-based approach on different platform i.e Moses and
MT-Hub and new prominent Deep learning based Neural
Machine Translation using Keras on Tensorflow. For the
proposed corpus-based approach an huge amount of corpus
was collected across different domains. The proposed system
gives a fluent translation. The result exhibit Neural Network

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MT-Hub Moses NMT MT-Hub Moses NMT
sahit Proposed approach
Fig. 1. Comparison of results for ”sahit” and proposed system
with accuracy of 60.4% outperforms statistical phrase based
approach with 58% accuracy on Moses and 45% on MT-Hub.
In the future, we would extend our system for translation by
merging statistical phrase-based learning approach with deep
recurrent Network. Also, linguistic feature extraction from
rule-based to train deep recurrent neural network forming
hybrid system for more optimized performance would be
developed and presented.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. R. Nair and L. S. Devi, Sanskrit Informatics: Informatics for
Sanskrit studies and research. Centre for Informatics Research an
dDevelopment, 2011.
[2] A. Bharati and A. Kulkarni, “Sanskrit and computational linguistics,” in
First International Sanskrit Computational Symposium. Department of
Sanskrit Studies, University of Hyderabad, 2007.
[3] M. L. Forcada, M. Ginestı́-Rosell, J. Nordfalk, J. ORegan, S. Ortiz-
Rojas, J. A. Pérez-Ortiz, F. Sánchez-Martı́nez, G. Ramı́rez-Sánchez,
and F. M. Tyers, “Apertium: a free/open-source platform for rule-based
machine translation,” Machine translation, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 127–144,
2011.
[4] G. Noone, “Machine translation a transfer approach,” Computer Science,
Linguistics and a Language (CSLL) Department, University of Dublin,
Trinity College, Final Rep, 2003.
[5] S. Dave, J. Parikh, and P. Bhattacharyya, “Interlingua-based english–
hindi machine translation and language divergence,” Machine Transla-
tion, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 251–304, 2001.
[6] P. F. Brown, V. J. D. Pietra, S. A. D. Pietra, and R. L. Mercer, “The
mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation,”
Computational linguistics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 263–311, 1993.
[7] D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio, “Neural machine translation by
jointly learning to align and translate,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473,
2014.
[8] H. Somers, “Example-based machine translation,” Machine translation,
vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 113–157, 1999.
[9] S. Nirenburg, “al.(1989) kbmt-89 project report,” Center for Machine
Translation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, p. 286, 1989.
[10] A. Bharati, V. Chaitanya, and R. Sangal, “Paninian framework and its
application toanusaraka,” Sadhana, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 113–127, 1994.
[11] P. Ramanujan, “Computer processing of sanskrit,” Computer Processing
Of Asian Languages CALP-2, IIT Kanpur, 1992.
[12] V. Mishra and R. Mishra, “Divergence patterns between english and
sanskrit machine translation,” INFOCOMP, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 62–71,
2009.
[13] ——, “Ann and rule based model for english to sanskrit machine
translation,” INFOCOMP, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 80–89, 2009.
[14] D. Mane, P. Devale, and S. SURYAWANS, “A design towards english
to sanskrit machine translatio and sy thesizer syste 1 si grule base
approach,” 2010.
[15] V. Barkade and P. R. Devale, “English to sanskrit machine translation
semantic mapper,” International Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 5313–5318, 2010.
[16] P. Shukla and A. Shukla, “English speech to sanskrit speech (esss) using
rule based translation,” International Journal of Computer Applications,
vol. 92, no. 10, 2014.
[17] S. G. Rathod and S. Sondur, “English to sanskrit translator and syn-
thesizer (etsts),” International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, vol. 2, no. 12, 2012.
[18] P. Bahadur, A. Jain, and D. Chauhan, “Etrans-a complete framework for
english to sanskrit machine translation,” in International Journal of Ad-
vanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA) from International
Conference and workshop on Emerging Trends in Technology. Citeseer,
2012.
[19] P. Upadhyay, U. C. Jaiswal, and K. Ashish, “Transish: Translator
from sanskrit to english-a rule based machine translation,” International
Journal of Current Engineering and Technology E-ISSN, pp. 2277–4106,
2014.
[20] S. R. Warhade, S. H. Patil, and P. R. Devale, “English-to-sanskrit
statistical machine translation with ubiquitous application,” International
Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 51, no. 1, 2012.
[21] G. N. Jha, “The tdil program and the indian langauge corpora intitiative
(ilci).” in LREC, 2010.
[22] S. S. Nair and A. Kulkarni, “The knowledge structure in amarakośa,”
in Sanskrit Computational Linguistics. Springer, 2010, pp. 173–189.
[23] A. Kulkarni. (2002) Samsaadhani, a sanskrit computational toolkit.
[24] A. Kumar, V. Mittal, and A. Kulkarni, “Sanskrit compound processor,”
in Sanskrit Computational Linguistics. Springer, 2010, pp. 57–69.
[25] R. K. Pandey and G. N. Jha, “Error analysis of sahit-a statistical sanskrit-
hindi translator,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 96, pp. 495–501,
2016.
[26] R. Pandey, A. K. Ojha, and G. N. Jha, “Demo of sanskrit-hindi statistical
machine translation system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06716, 2018.
[27] S. News. (2018) Sanskrit News,”Department of Public Health Rela-
tions”, url = http://mpinfo.org/News/SanskritNews.aspx, urldate = 13-
1-2019.
[28] D. Kenny and S. Doherty, “Statistical machine translation in the trans-
lation curriculum: overcoming obstacles and empowering translators,”
The Interpreter and translator trainer, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 276–294, 2014.
[29] P. Koehn, H. Hoang, A. Birch, C. Callison-Burch, M. Federico,
N. Bertoldi, B. Cowan, W. Shen, C. Moran, R. Zens et al., “Moses: Open
source toolkit for statistical machine translation,” in Proceedings of the
45th annual meeting of the ACL on interactive poster and demonstration
sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007, pp. 177–
180.
[30] F. Chollet et al., “Keras: Deep learning library for theano and tensor-
flow.(2015),” There is no corresponding record for this reference, 2015.
[31] M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin,
S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard et al., “Tensorflow: a system for large-
scale machine learning.” in OSDI, vol. 16, 2016, pp. 265–283.
[32] P. Koehn, F. J. Och, and D. Marcu, “Statistical phrase-based translation,”
in Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter
of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language
Technology-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2003,
pp. 48–54.
[33] F. J. Och, C. Tillmann, and H. Ney, “Improved alignment models for
statistical machine translation,” in 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large
Corpora, 1999.
[34] K. Yamada and K. Knight, “A syntax-based statistical translation model,”
in Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on association for compu-
tational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2001,
pp. 523–530.
[35] L. Tian, F. Wong, and S. Chao, “Word alignment using giza++ on
windows,” Machine Translation, 2011.
[36] M. Federico, N. Bertoldi, and M. Cettolo, “Irstlm: an open source toolkit
for handling large scale language models,” in Ninth Annual Conference
of the International Speech Communication Association, 2008.
[37] Microsoft. (2018) Microsoft Translator Hub, url =
https://hub.microsofttranslator.com/, urldate = 13-1-2019.
[38] K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “Bleu: a method
for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in Proceedings of
the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics.
Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 311–318.
[39] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural
computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997.
[40] I. J. Goodfellow, D. Warde-Farley, M. Mirza, A. Courville, and Y. Ben-
gio, “Maxout networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.4389, 2013.
[41] R. Pascanu, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio, “How to construct
deep recurrent neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6026, 2013.
[42] K. Cho, B. Van Merriënboer, C. Gulcehre, D. Bahdanau, F. Bougares,
H. Schwenk, and Y. Bengio, “Learning phrase representations using
rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1406.1078, 2014.
[43] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
[44] Y. Bengio, N. Boulanger-Lewandowski, and R. Pascanu, “Advances in
optimizing recurrent networks,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE, 2013, pp. 8624–
8628.