DOCSLIB.ORG

Statistical Machine Translation System User Manual and Code Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statistical Machine Translation System User Manual and Code Guide MOSES Statistical Machine Translation System User Manual and Code Guide Philipp Koehn [email protected] University of Edinburgh Abstract This document serves as user manual and code guide for the Moses machine translation decoder. The decoder was mainly developed by Hieu Hoang and Philipp Koehn at the University of Edinburgh and extended during a Johns Hopkins University Summer Workshop and further developed under EuroMa- trix and GALE project funding. The decoder (which is part of a complete statistical machine translation toolkit) is the de facto benchmark for research in the field. This document serves two purposes: a user manual for the functions of the Moses decoder and a code guide for developers. In large parts, this manual is identical to documentation available at the official Moses decoder web site http://www.statmt.org/. This document does not describe in depth the underlying methods, which are described in the text book Statistical Machine Translation (Philipp Koehn, Cambridge University Press, 2009). August 8, 2016 2 Acknowledgments The Moses decoder was supported by the European Framework 6 projects EuroMatrix, TC-Star, the European Framework 7 projects EuroMatrixPlus, Let’s MT, META-NET and MosesCore and the DARPA GALE project, as well as several universities such as the University of Edin- burgh, the University of Maryland, ITC-irst, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others. Contributors are too many to mention, but it is important to stress the substantial contributions from Hieu Hoang, Chris Dyer, Josh Schroeder, Marcello Federico, Richard Zens, and Wade Shen. Moses is an open source project under the guidance of Philipp Koehn. Contents 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Welcome to Moses! . 11 1.2 Overview . 11 1.2.1 Technology . 11 1.2.2 Components . 12 1.2.3 Development . 13 1.2.4 Moses in Use . 14 1.2.5 History . 14 1.3 Get Involved . 14 1.3.1 Mailing List . 14 1.3.2 Suggestions . 15 1.3.3 Development . 15 1.3.4 Use . 15 1.3.5 Contribute . 15 1.3.6 Projects . 16 2 Installation 23 2.1 Getting Started with Moses . 23 2.1.1 Easy Setup on Ubuntu (on other linux systems, you’ll need to install packages that provide gcc, make, git, automake, libtool) . 23 2.1.2 Compiling Moses directly with bjam . 25 2.1.3 Other software to install . 26 2.1.4 Platforms . 27 2.1.5 Windows Installation . 27 2.1.6 OSX Installation . 28 2.1.7 Linux Installation . 28 2.1.8 Run Moses for the first time . 30 2.1.9 Chart Decoder . 31 2.1.10 Next Steps . 31 2.1.11 bjam options . 31 2.2 Building with Eclipse . 33 2.3 Baseline System . 34 2.3.1 Overview . 34 2.3.2 Installation . 35 2.3.3 Corpus Preparation . 36 2.3.4 Language Model Training . 37 2.3.5 Training the Translation System . 38 3 4 CONTENTS 2.3.6 Tuning . 39 2.3.7 Testing . 40 2.3.8 Experiment Management System (EMS) . 43 2.4 Releases . 44 2.4.1 Release 3.0 (3rd Feb, 2015) . 44 2.4.2 Release 2.1.1 (3rd March, 2014) . 44 2.4.3 Release 2.1 (21th Jan, 2014) . 44 2.4.4 Release 1.0 (28th Jan, 2013) . 45 2.4.5 Release 0.91 (12th October, 2012) . 50 2.4.6 Status 11th July, 2012 . 50 2.4.7 Status 13th August, 2010 . 52 2.4.8 Status 9th August, 2010 . 53 2.4.9 Status 26th April, 2010 . 53 2.4.10 Status 1st April, 2010 . 53 2.4.11 Status 26th March, 2010 . 53 2.5 Work in Progress . 54 3 Tutorials 55 3.1 Phrase-based Tutorial . 55 3.1.1 A Simple Translation Model . 55 3.1.2 Running the Decoder . 56 3.1.3 Trace . 57 3.1.4 Verbose . 58 3.1.5 Tuning for Quality . 62 3.1.6 Tuning for Speed . 63 3.1.7 Limit on Distortion (Reordering) . 66 3.2 Tutorial for Using Factored Models . 67 3.2.1 Train an unfactored model . 68 3.2.2 Train a model with POS tags . 69 3.2.3 Train a model with generation and translation steps . 72 3.2.4 Train a morphological analysis and generation model . 73 3.2.5 Train a model with multiple decoding paths . 74 3.3 Syntax Tutorial . 75 3.3.1 Tree-Based Models . 75 3.3.2 Decoding . 77 3.3.3 Decoder Parameters . 81 3.3.4 Training . 83 3.3.5 Using Meta-symbols in Non-terminal Symbols (e.g., CCG) . 86 3.3.6 Different Kinds of Syntax Models . 87 3.3.7 Format of text rule table . 92 3.4 Optimizing Moses . 93 3.4.1 Multi-threaded Moses . 93 3.4.2 How much memory do I need during decoding? . 94 3.4.3 How little memory can I get away with during decoding? . 96 3.4.4 Faster Training . 96 3.4.5 Training Summary . 98 3.4.6 Language Model . 99 3.4.7 Suffix array . 101 CONTENTS 5 3.4.8 Cube Pruning . 102 3.4.9 Minimizing memory during training . 102 3.4.10 Minimizing memory during decoding . 102 3.4.11 Phrase-table types . 104 3.5 Experiment Management System . 105 3.5.1 Introduction . 105 3.5.2 Requirements . 106 3.5.3 Quick Start . 107 3.5.4 More Examples . 110 3.5.5 Try a Few More Things . 113 3.5.6 A Short Manual . 118 3.5.7 Analysis . 126 4 User Guide 131 4.1 Support Tools . 131 4.1.1 Overview . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Do BERT Embeddings Organize Linguistic Knowledge?
    How Do BERT Embeddings Organize Linguistic Knowledge? Giovanni Puccettiy , Alessio Miaschi? , Felice Dell’Orletta y Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa ?Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli”, Pisa ItaliaNLP Lab – www.italianlp.it [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract et al., 2019), we proposed an in-depth investigation Several studies investigated the linguistic in- aimed at understanding how the information en- formation implicitly encoded in Neural Lan- coded by BERT is arranged within its internal rep- guage Models. Most of these works focused resentation. In particular, we defined two research on quantifying the amount and type of in- questions, aimed at: (i) investigating the relation- formation available within their internal rep- ship between the sentence-level linguistic knowl- resentations and across their layers. In line edge encoded in a pre-trained version of BERT and with this scenario, we proposed a different the number of individual units involved in the en- study, based on Lasso regression, aimed at understanding how the information encoded coding of such knowledge; (ii) understanding how by BERT sentence-level representations is ar- these sentence-level properties are organized within ranged within its hidden units. Using a suite of the internal representations of BERT, identifying several probing tasks, we showed the existence groups of units more relevant for specific linguistic of a relationship between the implicit knowl- tasks. We defined a suite of probing tasks based on edge learned by the model and the number of a variable selection approach, in order to identify individual units involved in the encodings of which units in the internal representations of BERT this competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Treebanks, Linguistic Theories and Applications Introduction to Treebanks
    Treebanks, Linguistic Theories and Applications Introduction to Treebanks Lecture One Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria ESSLLI 2018 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Plan of the Lecture • Definition of a treebank • The place of the treebank in the language modeling • Related terms: parsebank, dynamic treebank • Prerequisites for the creation of a treebank • Treebank lifecycle • Theory (in)dependency • Language (in)dependency • Tendences in the treebank development 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Treebank Definition A corpus annotated with syntactic information • The information in the annotation is added/checked by a trained annotator - manual annotation • The annotation is complete - no unannotated fragments of the text • The annotation is consistent - similar fragments are analysed in the same way • The primary format of annotation - syntactic tree/graph 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Example Syntactic Trees from Wikipedia The two main approaches to modeling the syntactic information 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Pros vs. Cons (Handbook of NLP, p. 171) Constituency • Easy to read • Correspond to common grammatical knowledge (phrases) • Introduce arbitrary complexity Dependency • Flexible • Also correspond to common grammatical
    [Show full text]
  • (Meta-) Evaluation of Machine Translation
    (Meta-) Evaluation of Machine Translation Chris Callison-Burch Cameron Fordyce Philipp Koehn Johns Hopkins University CELCT University of Edinburgh ccb cs jhu edu fordyce celct it pkoehn inf ed ac uk Christof Monz Josh Schroeder Queen Mary, University of London University of Edinburgh christof dcs qmul ac uk j schroeder ed ac uk Abstract chine translation evaluation workshop. Here we ap- ply eleven different automatic evaluation metrics, This paper evaluates the translation quality and conduct three different types of manual evalu- of machine translation systems for 8 lan- ation. guage pairs: translating French, German, Beyond examining the quality of translations pro- Spanish, and Czech to English and back. duced by various systems, we were interested in ex- We carried out an extensive human evalua- amining the following questions about evaluation tion which allowed us not only to rank the methodologies: How consistent are people when different MT systems, but also to perform they judge translation quality? To what extent do higher-level analysis of the evaluation pro- they agree with other annotators? Can we im- cess. We measured timing and intra- and prove human evaluation? Which automatic evalu- inter-annotator agreement for three types of ation metrics correlate most strongly with human subjective evaluation. We measured the cor- judgments of translation quality? relation of automatic evaluation metrics with This paper is organized as follows: human judgments. This meta-evaluation re- veals surprising facts about the most com- • Section 2 gives an overview of the shared task. monly used methodologies. It describes the training and test data, reviews the baseline system, and lists the groups that 1 Introduction participated in the task.
    [Show full text]
  • Senserelate::Allwords - a Broad Coverage Word Sense Tagger That Maximizes Semantic Relatedness
    WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords - A Broad Coverage Word Sense Tagger that Maximizes Semantic Relatedness Ted Pedersen and Varada Kolhatkar Department of Computer Science University of Minnesota Duluth, MN 55812 USA tpederse,kolha002 @d.umn.edu http://senserelate.sourceforge.net{ } Abstract Despite these difficulties, word sense disambigua- tion is often a necessary step in NLP and can’t sim- WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords is a freely ply be ignored. The question arises as to how to de- available open source Perl package that as- velop broad coverage sense disambiguation modules signs a sense to every content word (known that can be deployed in a practical setting without in- to WordNet) in a text. It finds the sense of vesting huge sums in manual annotation efforts. Our each word that is most related to the senses answer is WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords (SR- of surrounding words, based on measures found in WordNet::Similarity. This method is AW), a method that uses knowledge already avail- shown to be competitive with results from re- able in the lexical database WordNet to assign senses cent evaluations including SENSEVAL-2 and to every content word in text, and as such offers SENSEVAL-3. broad coverage and requires no manual annotation of training data. SR-AW finds the sense of each word that is most 1 Introduction related or most similar to those of its neighbors in the Word sense disambiguation is the task of assigning sentence, according to any of the ten measures avail- a sense to a word based on the context in which it able in WordNet::Similarity (Pedersen et al., 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Compound Word Formation.Pdf
    Snyder, William (in press) Compound word formation. In Jeffrey Lidz, William Snyder, and Joseph Pater (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CHAPTER 6 Compound Word Formation William Snyder Languages differ in the mechanisms they provide for combining existing words into new, “compound” words. This chapter will focus on two major types of compound: synthetic -ER compounds, like English dishwasher (for either a human or a machine that washes dishes), where “-ER” stands for the crosslinguistic counterparts to agentive and instrumental -er in English; and endocentric bare-stem compounds, like English flower book , which could refer to a book about flowers, a book used to store pressed flowers, or many other types of book, as long there is a salient connection to flowers. With both types of compounding we find systematic cross- linguistic variation, and a literature that addresses some of the resulting questions for child language acquisition. In addition to these two varieties of compounding, a few others will be mentioned that look like promising areas for coordinated research on cross-linguistic variation and language acquisition. 6.1 Compounding—A Selective Review 6.1.1 Terminology The first step will be defining some key terms. An unfortunate aspect of the linguistic literature on morphology is a remarkable lack of consistency in what the “basic” terms are taken to mean. Strictly speaking one should begin with the very term “word,” but as Spencer (1991: 453) puts it, “One of the key unresolved questions in morphology is, ‘What is a word?’.” Setting this grander question to one side, a word will be called a “compound” if it is composed of two or more other words, and has approximately the same privileges of occurrence within a sentence as do other word-level members of its syntactic category (N, V, A, or P).
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Version of the Text Analysis Component, Including: Ner, Event Detection and Sentiment Analysis
    D4.1 PRELIMINARY VERSION OF THE TEXT ANALYSIS COMPONENT, INCLUDING: NER, EVENT DETECTION AND SENTIMENT ANALYSIS Grant Agreement nr 611057 Project acronym EUMSSI Start date of project (dur.) December 1st 2013 (36 months) Document due Date : November 30th 2014 (+60 days) (12 months) Actual date of delivery December 2nd 2014 Leader GFAI Reply to [email protected] Document status Submitted Project co-funded by ICT-7th Framework Programme from the European Commission EUMSSI_D4.1 Preliminary version of the text analysis component 1 Project ref. no. 611057 Project acronym EUMSSI Project full title Event Understanding through Multimodal Social Stream Interpretation Document name EUMSSI_D4.1_Preliminary version of the text analysis component.pdf Security (distribution PU – Public level) Contractual date of November 30th 2014 (+60 days) delivery Actual date of December 2nd 2014 delivery Deliverable name Preliminary Version of the Text Analysis Component, including: NER, event detection and sentiment analysis Type P – Prototype Status Submitted Version number v1 Number of pages 60 WP /Task responsible GFAI / GFAI & UPF Author(s) Susanne Preuss (GFAI), Maite Melero (UPF) Other contributors Mahmoud Gindiyeh (GFAI), Eelco Herder (LUH), Giang Tran Binh (LUH), Jens Grivolla (UPF) EC Project Officer Mrs. Aleksandra WESOLOWSKA [email protected] Abstract The deliverable reports on the resources and tools that have been gathered and installed for the preliminary version of the text analysis component Keywords Text analysis component, Named Entity Recognition, Named Entity Linking, Keyphrase Extraction, Relation Extraction, Topic modelling, Sentiment Analysis Circulated to partners Yes Peer review Yes completed Peer-reviewed by Eelco Herder (L3S) Coordinator approval Yes EUMSSI_D4.1 Preliminary version of the text analysis component 2 Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Linguistic Analysis for the Accurate Identification of Predicate
    Deep Linguistic Analysis for the Accurate Identification of Predicate-Argument Relations Yusuke Miyao Jun'ichi Tsujii Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Tokyo University of Tokyo [email protected] CREST, JST [email protected] Abstract obtained by deep linguistic analysis (Gildea and This paper evaluates the accuracy of HPSG Hockenmaier, 2003; Chen and Rambow, 2003). parsing in terms of the identification of They employed a CCG (Steedman, 2000) or LTAG predicate-argument relations. We could directly (Schabes et al., 1988) parser to acquire syntac- compare the output of HPSG parsing with Prop- tic/semantic structures, which would be passed to Bank annotations, by assuming a unique map- statistical classifier as features. That is, they used ping from HPSG semantic representation into deep analysis as a preprocessor to obtain useful fea- PropBank annotation. Even though PropBank tures for training a probabilistic model or statistical was not used for the training of a disambigua- tion model, an HPSG parser achieved the ac- classifier of a semantic argument identifier. These curacy competitive with existing studies on the results imply the superiority of deep linguistic anal- task of identifying PropBank annotations. ysis for this task. Although the statistical approach seems a reason- 1 Introduction able way for developing an accurate identifier of Recently, deep linguistic analysis has successfully PropBank annotations, this study aims at establish- been applied to real-world texts. Several parsers ing a method of directly comparing the outputs of have been implemented in various grammar for- HPSG parsing with the PropBank annotation in or- malisms and empirical evaluation has been re- der to explicitly demonstrate the availability of deep ported: LFG (Riezler et al., 2002; Cahill et al., parsers.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Project Presentation and Updates
    7.2: Public Project Presentation and Updates Philipp Koehn Distribution: Public EuroMatrix Statistical and Hybrid Machine Translation Between All European Languages IST 034291 Deliverable 7.2 December 21, 2007 Project funded by the European Community under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Project ref no. IST-034291 Project acronym EuroMatrix Project full title Statistical and Hybrid Machine Translation Between All Eu- ropean Languages Instrument STREP Thematic Priority Information Society Technologies Start date / duration 01 September 2006 / 30 Months Distribution Public Contractual date of delivery September 1, 2007 Actual date of delivery September 13, 2007 Deliverable number 7.2 Deliverable title Public Project Presentation and Updates Type Report, contractual Status & version Finished Number of pages 19 Contributing WP(s) WP7 WP / Task responsible WP7 / 7.6 Other contributors none Author(s) Philipp Koehn EC project officer Xavier Gros Keywords The partners in EuroMatrix are: Saarland University (USAAR) University of Edinburgh (UEDIN) Charles University (CUNI-MFF) CELCT GROUP Technologies MorphoLogic For copies of reports, updates on project activities and other EuroMatrix-related in- formation, contact: The EuroMatrix Project Co-ordinator Prof. Hans Uszkoreit Universit¨at des Saarlandes, Computerlinguistik Postfach 15 11 50 66041 Saarbr¨ucken, Germany [email protected] Phone +49 (681) 302-4115- Fax +49 (681) 302-4700 Copies of reports and other material can also be accessed via the project’s homepage: http://www.euromatrix.net/ c 2007, The Individual Authors No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Retrieval and Web Search
    Information Retrieval and Web Search Text processing Instructor: Rada Mihalcea (Note: Some of the slides in this slide set were adapted from an IR course taught by Prof. Ray Mooney at UT Austin) IR System Architecture User Interface Text User Text Operations Need Logical View User Query Database Indexing Feedback Operations Manager Inverted file Query Searching Index Text Ranked Retrieved Database Docs Ranking Docs Text Processing Pipeline Documents to be indexed Friends, Romans, countrymen. OR User query Tokenizer Token stream Friends Romans Countrymen Linguistic modules Modified tokens friend roman countryman Indexer friend 2 4 1 2 Inverted index roman countryman 13 16 From Text to Tokens to Terms • Tokenization = segmenting text into tokens: • token = a sequence of characters, in a particular document at a particular position. • type = the class of all tokens that contain the same character sequence. • “... to be or not to be ...” 3 tokens, 1 type • “... so be it, he said ...” • term = a (normalized) type that is included in the IR dictionary. • Example • text = “I slept and then I dreamed” • tokens = I, slept, and, then, I, dreamed • types = I, slept, and, then, dreamed • terms = sleep, dream (stopword removal). Simple Tokenization • Analyze text into a sequence of discrete tokens (words). • Sometimes punctuation (e-mail), numbers (1999), and case (Republican vs. republican) can be a meaningful part of a token. – However, frequently they are not. • Simplest approach is to ignore all numbers and punctuation and use only case-insensitive
    [Show full text]
  • Hunspell – the Free Spelling Checker
    Hunspell – The free spelling checker About Hunspell Hunspell is a spell checker and morphological analyzer library and program designed for languages with rich morphology and complex word compounding or character encoding. Hunspell interfaces: Ispell-like terminal interface using Curses library, Ispell pipe interface, OpenOffice.org UNO module. Main features of Hunspell spell checker and morphological analyzer: - Unicode support (affix rules work only with the first 65535 Unicode characters) - Morphological analysis (in custom item and arrangement style) and stemming - Max. 65535 affix classes and twofold affix stripping (for agglutinative languages, like Azeri, Basque, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, etc.) - Support complex compoundings (for example, Hungarian and German) - Support language specific features (for example, special casing of Azeri and Turkish dotted i, or German sharp s) - Handle conditional affixes, circumfixes, fogemorphemes, forbidden words, pseudoroots and homonyms. - Free software (LGPL, GPL, MPL tri-license) Usage The src/tools dictionary contains ten executables after compiling (or some of them are in the src/win_api): affixcompress: dictionary generation from large (millions of words) vocabularies analyze: example of spell checking, stemming and morphological analysis chmorph: example of automatic morphological generation and conversion example: example of spell checking and suggestion hunspell: main program for spell checking and others (see manual) hunzip: decompressor of hzip format hzip: compressor of
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Treebank for French
    Building a treebank for French £ £¥ Anne Abeillé£ , Lionel Clément , Alexandra Kinyon ¥ £ TALaNa, Université Paris 7 University of Pennsylvania 75251 Paris cedex 05 Philadelphia FRANCE USA abeille, clement, [email protected] Abstract Very few gold standard annotated corpora are currently available for French. We present an ongoing project to build a reference treebank for French starting with a tagged newspaper corpus of 1 Million words (Abeillé et al., 1998), (Abeillé and Clément, 1999). Similarly to the Penn TreeBank (Marcus et al., 1993), we distinguish an automatic parsing phase followed by a second phase of systematic manual validation and correction. Similarly to the Prague treebank (Hajicova et al., 1998), we rely on several types of morphosyntactic and syntactic annotations for which we define extensive guidelines. Our goal is to provide a theory neutral, surface oriented, error free treebank for French. Similarly to the Negra project (Brants et al., 1999), we annotate both constituents and functional relations. 1. The tagged corpus pronoun (= him ) or a weak clitic pronoun (= to him or to As reported in (Abeillé and Clément, 1999), we present her), plus can either be a negative adverb (= not any more) the general methodology, the automatic tagging phase, the or a simple adverb (= more). Inflectional morphology also human validation phase and the final state of the tagged has to be annotated since morphological endings are impor- corpus. tant for gathering constituants (based on agreement marks) and also because lots of forms in French are ambiguous 1.1. Methodology with respect to mode, person, number or gender. For exam- 1.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • 8.14: Annual Public Report
    8.14: Annual Public Report S. Busemann, O. Bojar, C. Callison-Burch, M. Cettolo, R. Garabik, J. van Genabith, P. Koehn, H. Schwenk, K. Simov, P. Wolf Distribution: Public EuroMatrixPlus Bringing Machine Translation for European Languages to the User ICT 231720 Deliverable 8.14 Project funded by the European Community under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Project ref no. ICT-231720 Project acronym EuroMatrixPlus Project full title Bringing Machine Translation for European Languages to the User Instrument STREP Thematic Priority ICT-2007.2.2 Cognitive systems, interaction, robotics Start date / duration 01 March 2009 / 38 Months Distribution Public Contractual date of delivery November 15, 2011 Actual date of delivery December 05, 2011 Date of last update December 5, 2011 Deliverable number 8.14 Deliverable title Annual Public Report Type Report Status & version Final Number of pages 13 Contributing WP(s) all WP / Task responsible DFKI Other contributors All Participants Author(s) S. Busemann, O. Bojar, C. Callison-Burch, M. Cettolo, R. Garabik, J. van Genabith, P. Koehn, H. Schwenk, K. Simov, P. Wolf EC project officer Michel Brochard Keywords The partners in DFKI GmbH, Saarbr¨ucken (DFKI) EuroMatrixPlus University of Edinburgh (UEDIN) are: Charles University (CUNI-MFF) Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) Universit´edu Maine, Le Mans (LeMans) Dublin City University (DCU) Lucy Software and Services GmbH (Lucy) Central and Eastern European Translation, Prague (CEET) Ludovit Stur Institute of Linguistics, Slovak Academy of Sciences (LSIL) Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (IICT-BAS) For copies of reports, updates on project activities and other EuroMatrixPlus-related information, contact: The EuroMatrixPlus Project Co-ordinator Prof.
    [Show full text]