Multilingual Factor Analysis
Table 2: Comparisons without post-processing of methods. Results reproduced from smith2017offline for fair comparison. Left: Comparisons using the same expert dictionary as smith2017offline. Right: Comparisons using the pseudo-dictionary from smith2017offline.
['[EMPTY]', 'English to Italian @1', 'English to Italian @5', 'English to Italian @10', 'Italian to English @1', 'Italian to English @5', 'Italian to English @10', 'English to Italian @1', 'English to Italian @5', 'English to Italian @10', 'Italian to English @1', 'Italian to English @5', 'Italian to English @10']
We present a more detailed comparison to the SVD method described in smith2017offline. We focus on methods in their base form, that is without post-processing techniques, i.e. cross-domain similarity local scaling (CSLS) conneau2017word or inverted softmax (ISF) smith2017offline. This does not give the same results as the standard CCA procedure. and we compare our method (IBFA) using both the expert dictionaries from dinu2014improving and the pseudo-dictionaries as constructed in smith2017offline. We significantly outperform both SVD and CCA, especially when using the pseudo-dictionaries.