\section{Introduction}
The structure and properties of nuclear matter is one of the central issues in the development of nuclear many-body
theory. Nuclear matter is of great relevance for the physics of supernova, neutron stars and heavy ion collisions,
for the development of density functionals in nuclear structure studies and for the understanding at fundamental
level of the low energy baryon-baryon interaction. For a review see reference \cite{report}. Different many-body
theories \cite{book,Navarro} have been developed to approach this problem. One can mention the variational method \cite{V1,V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8}, the Monte-Carlo method in its different versions
\cite{MC1,MC2,MC3,MC4,MC5,MC6} and the diagrammatic expansion methods, in particular the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone hole-line expansion \cite{book} and the Self Consistent Green Function scheme \cite{S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8}. One of the main goal of this effort along the
years has been the explanation of the saturation point of nuclear matter that can be extracted phenomenologically through various experimental method, in particular the analysis of the binding energy of nuclei and of the electron elastic scattering cross sections \cite{report}. However, besides the saturation point, one of the most
important characteristics of nuclear matter is its correlation structure. In fact the presence of a hard core in
the nucleon-nucleon interaction produces a correlation "hole" between two nucleons that can be described by the
correlation function. The latter is also determined by the intermediate and long-range interaction, typical of the nuclear two-nucleon potential. The correlation function is a key quantity to characterize each many-body scheme
and to understand the corresponding numerical results.
In scattering studies, the spectral function of many fermionic system gives the important quantities of interests and the short and long range correlation functions are very important factors for calculating the spectral functions  \cite{Benh}. The connection of the correlation function and the spectral function
is not straightforward, but it has been elucidated in ref. \cite{claudio} in the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) framework
and in ref. \cite{Modar12} for the Lowest Order Constrained Variational (LOCV) method, where it is particularly transparent.
Furthermore several phenomena that occur in
neutron star matter are closely linked to the correlation function, like e.g. dissipation due to shear viscosity
and neutrino transport.
It appears then natural to look for a comparison between the correlation functions from
different many-body schemes. In this paper we present a detailed comparison between the Bethe-Brueckner-Goldstone
(BBG) method \cite{book} and the variational method, as developed within the LOCV framework. Both methods have been applied systematically to nuclear matter with different two-body
interactions. The results for the saturation point and other physical parameters, like the compressibility at high
density \cite{rep_jpg,mod_jpg}, the critical temperature of the liquid-gas phase transition \cite{lidia,lg_locv}, are close but not completely in agreement.
One of the main goals of this work is to present an analysis of the correlation function that could help understanding the reason of the agreements and the discrepancies by the comparison of the corresponding correlation properties.

\section{The variational method \label{var}}
The method of Lowest Order Constrained Variational approach is among the microscopic methods that were developed to calculate
the bulk properties of homogeneous nuclear fluids such as the saturation quantities by using the realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction i.e. Reid68 and $\Delta-$Reid (the modified Reid potential with inclusion of isobar degrees of freedom) \cite{Mod79}. This method was reformulated to include more sophisticated interactions \cite{Bord} such as
$UV_{14}, AV_{18}$ \cite{wir} and charge dependent Reid potential (Reid93)\, \cite{Reid}. The LOCV method has
been also developed for calculating the various thermodynamic properties of hot and frozen homogeneous fermionic
fluids such as symmetric and asymmetric nuclear matter \cite{Hamid1}, $\beta-$stable matter \cite{Hamid2}, Helium
3 \cite{Hamid3}, electron fluid \cite{elec} with different realistic interactions. Recently the LOCV formalism was
developed for covering the relativistic Hamiltonian with a potential which has been fitted relativistically to
nucleon-nucleon phase shifts \cite{rel}. The LOCV calculation is a fully self-consistent technique with state
dependent correlation functions. There is no free parameter in this method, except those included in the
interactions. Considering constraint as in the form of normalization condition is another advantage of LOCV
formalism. This assumption keeps the higher order terms as small as possible and it also assumes a particular form
for the long range behavior of the correlation functions in order to perform an exact functional minimization of
the two-body energy with respect to the short range parts of correlation functions. The functional minimization
procedure represents an enormous computational simplification over the unconstrained methods, where the short
range behavior of the correlation functions is parametrized, that attempt to go beyond the lowest order
\cite{beyond}. To test the convergence of the LOCV method for nuclear matter and helium 3, the calculations were
performed beyond the lowest order and the three-body cluster energy was evaluated with both the state averaged and
state dependent correlation functions \cite{TBF}. The smallness of the normalization (the convergence parameter) and of
the three body cluster energy indicated that at least up to the twice empirical nuclear matter saturation density,
the cluster expansion converges reasonably and stopping after two-body cluster terms is a fair approximation.
   In the LOCV method, we use an ideal Fermi gas type wave functions, $\phi_{i}$ , for the single particle states
   and we employ the variational techniques to find the wave function of interacting system \cite{Mod79}-\cite{Reid},i.e,
\begin{equation}
\Psi=F \, \Phi,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ is the uncorrelated Fermi system wave function (Slater determinant of plane waves) and the factor $F(1,2..,A)$ is the many-body correlation function, defined as product of two body correlation functions $f(i,j)$ (Jastrow form) and assumes that they are operators,
\begin{equation}
F={\cal S} \prod_{i<j}f(i,j),
\end{equation}
where $\cal S$ is a symmetrizing operator.
   The many-body energy term $E[f]$, which is a functional of the $f$' s, is calculated by constructing a cluster expansion
   for the expectation value of Hamiltonian $H$ of the system.
\begin{equation}
E[f] \,=\, \frac{1}{A}\, \frac{<\, \Psi\, |\, H\, |\, \Psi\, >}{<\, \Psi\, |\, \Psi\, >} \,=\, E_1 \,+\, E_2 \,
+\, \cdots\cdots \,>\, E_0.
\end{equation}
 where $E_0$ is the true ground state energy and A is the particle number.
 In the lowest order we truncate the above series after $E_2$ i.e. two-body energy.
 The one body term $E_1$ is independent of the f and is just the familiar Fermi gas kinetic energy.
The two-body energy term is defined as,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_2 &\,=\,\,& \frac{1}{2A} \sum_{ij} <\, ij\, |\, W\, |\, ij\,>_a  \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ | \, ij\, >_a \,=\, | \, ij\,
> \,-\, | \, ji\, > \nonumber\\
 &\, &  \nonumber\\
W &\,=\, & -\, \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \big[ f(1,2) , [ \nabla^2 , f(1,2) ] \big] \,+\, f(1,2) V(1,2) f(1,2),
\label{eq:W}\end{eqnarray}
and the two-body anti-symmetrized matrix element $ <\, ij\, |\, W\, |\, ij\,>_a $ are taken with respect to the
single-particle functions composing $\phi_{i}$ i.e. plane-waves. By inserting a complete set of two-particle state
twice in above equation and performing some algebra we can rewrite the two-body term as a functional of
correlation functions \cite{Mod79,Bord,Reid} . In this equation $V(1,2)$ is phenomenological nucleon-nucleon potential such as Reid
type, $UV_{14}$ and $AV_{18}$. At this stage, we can minimize the two-body energy  with respect to the variations
of the correlation functions \cite{Mod79,Bord,Reid} , but subject to the normalization constraint \cite{Mod79}-\cite{rel} :
\begin{equation}
 \frac{1}{A} <\, ij\, |\, h^2(1,2) \,-\, f^2(1,2)\, |\, ij\, >_a \,\,=\,\, 1.
\label{eq:norm}\end{equation}
\noindent The function $h(12)$ is the modified Pauli function, which for the symmetrical nuclear matter take the
following form:
\begin{equation}
 h(1,2) \,=\, \Big( \, 1 \,-\, \frac{9}{4} \big(\, \frac{j_1(r_{12})}{r_{12}}\, \big)^2 \Big)^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $j_1(r_{12})$ is the well known spherical Bessel function of order 1. Note that $[\chi=<\Psi|\Psi>-1]$ plays
 the role of a smallness parameter in the cluster expansion. The above constraint
introduces a Lagrange multiplier through which all the correlation functions are coupled. Then we can write sets
of uncoupled and coupled Euler-Lagrange differential equations with respect to the correlation functions. The
constraint is incorporated by solving these Euler-Lagrange equations only up to a certain distance where the
logarithmic derivative of correlation functions matches those of Pauli function and then we set the correlation
functions equal to Pauli function . As we pointed out before, there is no free parameter in our LOCV formalism
i.e. the healing distance is determined directly by the constraint and the initial conditions.
\section{The BBG expansion \label{BBG}}
One of the most known and used microscopic many-body approach to the theory of nuclear matter is the
Bethe-Brueckner-Goldstone (BBG) expansion \cite{book}. In this scheme the original nucleon-nucleon interaction is
systematically replaced by the so-called G-matrix, that describes the two-nucleon scattering amplitude inside the
medium. A modified perturbative expansion is then developed in terms of this effective interaction and the
different terms can be represented by diagrams. The G-matrix can be defined also for singular interaction, e.g.
with a hard core, and it is expected to be "smaller" than the original NN interaction. Although all modern
realistic NN interactions introduce a finite repulsive core, it is however quite large, and therefore in any case
a straightforward perturbative expansion cannot be applied. As discussed in the presentation of the variational
method, the repulsive core is expected to modify strongly the ground state wave function whenever the coordinates
of two particles approach each other at a separation distance smaller than the core radius $c$. In such a
situation the wave function should be sharply decreasing with the two particle distance. The ``wave function'' of
two particles in the unperturbed ground state $\phi_0$ can be defined as ($k_1 , k_2 \leq k_F$) \begin{equation}
 \phi(r_1,r_2) \, =\,  \langle \phi_0 \vert \psi{ }^\dagger_{\xi_1} (\v{r_1})
 \psi{ }^\dagger_{\xi_2} (\v{r_2}) a_{k_1} a_{k_2} \vert \phi_0 \rangle \, =\,
 e^{i (\v{k_1} + \v{k_2})\cdot \v{R} }
 e^{i (\v{k_1} - \v{k_2})\cdot \v{r} /2 } \ \ ,
\le{deff} \end{equation} \noindent where $\xi_1 \neq \xi_2$ are spin-isospin variables, and $\v{R} = (\v{r_1} + \v{r_2})/2$,
$\v{r} = (\v{r_1} - \v{r_2})$ are the center of mass and relative coordinate of the two particles respectively.
Therefore the wave function of the relative motion in the $s$-wave is proportional to the spherical Bessel
function of order zero $j_0 (k r)$, with $k$ the modulus of the relative momentum vector $\v{k} = (\v{k_1} -
\v{k_2})/2$. The core repulsion is expected to act mainly in the $s$-wave, since it is short range, and therefore
this behavior must be strongly modified. In the simple case of $k = 0$ the free wave function $j_0 (k r)
\rightarrow 1$, and schematically one can expect a modification, due to the core, as depicted in Fig.
\ref{fig:fig_corr}.
\begin{figure} [h]
\begin{center}
\vskip 0.6 cm
\includegraphics[bb= 140 0 300 790,angle=90,scale=0.4]{fig1.ps}
\vspace{0.3 cm}
   \caption{Schematic representation of the expected effect
  of the core repulsion on the two-body wave function in nuclear matter.}
    \label{fig:fig_corr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\noindent The main effect of the core is to ``deplete'' the wave function close to $r = 0$, in a region of the order of
the core radius $c$. Of course, the attractive part of the interaction will modify this simple picture at $r > c$.
If the core interaction is the strongest one, then the average probability $p$ for two particles to be at distance
$r < c$ would be a measure of the overall strength of the interaction. If $p$ is small, then one can try to expand
the total energy shift $\Delta E$ due to the interaction in power of $p$. The power $p^n$ has, in fact, the
meaning of probability for $n$ particles to be all at a relative distance less than $c$.
In a very rough estimate  $p$ is given by the ratio between the volume occupied by the core and the average
available volume per particle \begin{equation}
 p \, \approx \, \left( {c\over d} \right)^3,
\le{wound} \end{equation} \noindent with ${4\pi\over 3} d^3 = \rho^{-1}$. From Eq. (\re{wound}) one gets $p \approx {8\over 9\pi}
(k_F c)^3$, which is small at saturation, $k_F = 1.36 \, fm^{-1}$, and the commonly adopted value for the core is
$c = 0.4 \, fm$. The parameter remains small up to few times the saturation density.\par The terms of the
expansion can now be ordered according to the order of the correlations they describe, i.e. the power in $p$ they
are associated with. It is easy to recognize that this is physically equivalent to grouping the diagrams according
to the number of hole lines they contain, where $n$ hole lines correspond to $n$-body correlations. In fact, an
irreducible diagram with $n$ hole lines describes a process in which $n$ particles are excited from the Fermi sea
and scatter in some way above the Fermi sea. Equivalently, all the diagrams with $n$ hole lines describe the
effect of clusters of $n$ particles, and therefore the arrangement of the expansion for increasing number of hole
lines is called alternatively ``hole expansion'' or ``cluster expansion''. For a pedagogical introduction to the
BBG expansion see refs. \cite{book,jpg}, where references to more technical reviews can be found. In ref.
\cite{jpg} the connection of BBG and the variational method is discussed. The relation between the two approaches turns out to be more transparent if the BBG expansion is reformulated in terms of the coupled cluster method (or $e^S$ method) \cite{Kum}. According to this scheme the wave function of the
ground state is written
\begin{equation}
    \vert \Psi \rangle \, =\, e^{\hat{S}} \vert \Phi \rangle,
\label{eq:exp}\end{equation} \noindent
\noindent where $\hat{S} $ is a correlation operator containing a set of n-body terms which produce excitations of
$n$ particles from below to above the Fermi sea.
 This method has also a variational character, in the sense that the variation is performed not
 on the ground state wave function but on these correlation terms \cite{Kum,Heisen}.
Then a set of coupled equations is obtained for the $n$-body correlation functions. The expansion of this set of equations in terms of the order of the correlations is equivalent to a re-ordering of the hole-line expansion in the BBG theory \cite{DayV}. At the $2$-body level of approximation the method is equivalent to the so-called Brueckner
approximation \cite{DayV,jpg} in the BBG hole-line expansion, and the operator $\hat{S}$ reduces to a two-body operator $\hat{S}_2$
\begin{equation}  \hat{S}_2 \,\,\,\,\,  =\, \sum_{k_1 k_2 , k_1' k_2'}
    \langle k_1' k_2' \vert S_2 \vert k_1 k_2 \rangle
    {a}{}^\dagger(k_1'){a} {}^\dagger(k_2')  \,
    a(k_2) a(k_1),
\label{eq:S} \end{equation} \noindent where the $k$ ' s label hole state , i.e. inside the Fermi sphere, and the $k'$ ' s
particle states, i.e. outside the Fermi sphere. Each quantity $k$ indicates momentum $\mathbf{k}$ and spin-isospin quantum
numbers. The function $\hat{S}_2$ is the so called ''defect function" of the Brueckner scheme. It can be written in term of the $G$-matrix
and it is just the difference between the in-medium interacting and non interacting two-body wave functions
\cite{book,jpg}. The different terms of the summation commute with each other and expanding the exponential in Eq.
(\ref{eq:exp}) one gets the product of the correlation operators over all sets of momenta,
\begin{equation}
\vert \Psi \rangle \, =\, \Pi_{\{k\} } \big[\, 1 \,+\, \sum_{k_1' k_2'} \langle k_1' k_2' \vert S_2 \vert k_1 k_2 \rangle
    {a}{}^\dagger(k_1'){a} {}^\dagger(k_2')  \,
    a(k_2) a(k_1)\, \big]  \vert \Phi \rangle ,
\label{eq:prod}\end{equation}
\noindent where the product is over all disjoint pairs of momenta $k_1 , k_2$, in a given partition of the set of all momenta, in agreement with the Brueckner scheme, which is an independent pair approximation. Higher orders in the expansion vanish because they include powers of annihilation or creation
operators. In the square bracket one can recognize the two-body wave function. After Fourier
transformation to coordinate representation and assuming the defect function to be local and independent of total momentum, this expression acquires
the same form as in the variational method, where the two-body wave function plays the role of the correlation
factors $f(i,j)$. However there are relevant differences with the variational method. First of all the BBG
expansion is not explicitly variational, although, as already mentioned, one can recast the expansion in terms of the $e^S$ scheme, which can be formulated by means of a particular variational procedure \cite{Kum,jpg}. Second, the G-matrix, and
therefore the defect function, is in general highly non-local, which means that the two-body wave function is
dependent also on the initial momenta in the Fermi sea, as well as on the total momentum.  This would imply a correlation factor in integral form
for the variational scheme. Furthermore in BBG expansion one introduces a single particle auxiliary potential, in
order to increase the degree of convergence of the expansion. This potential is usually called Brueckner potential and it is determined with a self-consistent procedure \cite{book}. In the variational method no single particle potential is introduced in the minimization procedure. Of course it is hidden in the mean value of the hamiltonian, but it can be calculated only after the optimal many-body wave
function and energy have been obtained, by adding a tiny fraction of particle to the system \cite{Bob}. Finally in the variational method the correlation function is introduced in the mean value of both the kinetic energy and the interaction term. It is a peculiarity of the BBG expansion that the total energy is written as the sum of the unperturbed kinetic energy and the correlated interaction energy. The latter includes of course implicitly the effect of the correlation on the kinetic energy due to the momentum dependence of the single particle potential and of the G-matrix.
\par
It is one of the main purposes of this work to explore the consequences of these differences on the
correlation properties of the ground state. In turn, the study provides a detailed view of the nuclear matter correlations. Since for both LOCV and the BBG expansion three-body correlations turns out to
be only a fraction of MeV around saturation density \cite{jpg,3hole,3holen}, we restrict the comparison to two-body correlations.  In any case the two-body correlation functions are determined at the BHF level for the BBG expansion and at the two-body Jastrow-like factors for the variational method.
\section{Formal and numerical comparison}
In order to formulate a meaningful comparison between the two-body microscopic methods, we introduce a mixed representation of the correlation functions. In the expansion of Eq. (\ref{eq:prod}) we separate relative and total momenta and perform the Fourier transformation on the momenta $k'$, i.e. the final ones above the Fermi sea. One gets in this way the correlation function $F$ in coordinate representation, which is dependent on the initial relative momentum and on the total momentum
\begin{equation}
\int\, \frac{d^3 q'}{(2\pi)^3}\, e^{i\mathbf{q}'\mathbf{r}}\, \big[\, \delta_{qq'} \,+\, \langle\, q'\, | S_2(P) |\, q\, \rangle \big] \,=\, F_B(r; q, P),
\label{eq:FT}\end{equation}
\noindent
where the defect function can be written in term of the G-matrix
\begin{equation}
\langle\, q'\, | S_2(P) |\, q\, \rangle  \,=\, \frac{Q(q',P)}{e(q',q,P)}\langle\, q'\, | G(P) |\, q\, \rangle,
\label{eq:defect}\end{equation}
\noindent where $Q$ is the average Pauli operator and $e$ is the average two particles excitation energy, see the Appendix for more details. Because of this averaging, the denominator in Eq. (\ref{eq:defect})
can vanish. The integral of Eq. (\ref{eq:FT}) is meant as principal value, in agreement with the BHF calculations of the nuclear matter EOS.\par
The correlation function can be expanded in partial waves and one can define a correlation function for each two-body channel, identified by the quantum numbers $lSJT$ of the relative angular momentum, total spin, total angular momentum and total isospin, respectively. As shown in the appendix, the correlation function $F_B$ has to be compared with the corresponding correlation function $F_V$ for the variational method
\begin{equation}
F_V(r,q) \,=\, f(r)\,\cdot j_l (qr),
\label{eq:fv}\end{equation}
\noindent where $j_l$ is the spherical Bessel function of order $l$ and $f(r)$ is the correlation function of e.g. Eq. (\ref{eq:norm}). It is essential to notice the factorization of the free wave function, characteristic of the variational method. For the Brueckner correlation function $F_B$ this property does not hold, which embodies the non-locality of the G-matrix. However it can hold approximately, and this can be verified by e.g. the numerical comparison between the two correlation functions. Details on the formal comparison between $F_V$ and $F_B$ can be found in the Appendix.\par
We consider symmetric nuclear matter around saturation and we take the potential Argonne $v_{18}$ \cite{wir} as the two-body nucleon-nucleon interaction. At the Fermi momentum $k_F \,=\, 1.36 $\,fm$^{-1}$, corresponding to density $0.17$ fm$^{-3}$, we compare in Fig. \ref{fig:def1s0} the correlation functions
$F_V(r)$ and $F_B(r)$ at the relative initial momentum $q \,=\, 0.1$ fm$^{-1}$ and at zero total momentum $P$. In this case the correlation functions are calculated for the $^1S_0$ channel. In the variational method a small hard core of radius $R_c \,=\, 0.1 fm$ is introduced for numerical reasons, which is apparent from the figure since the correlation function $F_V$ is zero below the core radius. Both correlation functions feel in any case the repulsive, but finite, core of the interaction and they decrease sharply at short distance. They agree closely above the small core radius $R_c$. At large distances
both correlation functions reach the expected value of $1$, but just above the repulsive core
they exceed $1$, due to the attractive part of the NN interaction. In this region they practically coincide. A small discrepancy is observed at intermediate distances, where $F_V$ is slightly larger than $F_B$. To be more quantitative, we calculated the mean absolute deviation for $r > 0.25\,$fm.
We found a value below 2\%, as in all cases we are going to consider in the following. \par
The comparison for the $^1S_0$ channel, but for $q \,=\, 0.5$ fm$^{-1}$, is reported in Fig. \ref{fig:def1s0bis}. In this case already at moderate distance the two-body wave function $F$ starts to oscillate since it smoothly merges into the free wave function, i.e. the Bessel function (of order $0$ in this case). The same agreement between $F_V$ and $F_B$ is observed. This result indicates that the factorization of
Eq.(\ref{eq:fv}) is approximately valid also for the correlation function $F_B$ of the BBG expansion.
It is also an indication that the defect function is approximately local. \par
Notice that in the numerical calculations the correlation functions are multiplied by $r^2$ and therefore the contribution of the small distances is vanishing small. This is illustrated in the same figures, where the correlation functions multiplied by $r^2$ are reported. In this case the very close agreement is apparent. A similar trend is obtained for the $^3S_1$ channel, Fig. \ref{fig:def3s1}.
In the channels with higher partial waves the agreement is even better. To put in evidence the tiny differences, we have reported in an amplified scale the correlation functions in
Fig. \ref{fig:def1p1} for the $^1P_1$ channel and in Fig. \ref{fig:def3p1} for the $^3P_1$ channel. Notice the change of scale with respect to the previous figures. In these cases the centrifugal barrier suppresses further the two-body wave functions at short and intermediate distance. At larger distance, outside the considered range, the correlation functions merges into the proper Bessel function and then they obviously coincide. \par
 We also checked the dependence on the total momentum that is present in the two-body wave function.
 It turns out that this dependence is quite weak, see Fig. \ref{fig:def3s1p}, which justifies the assumption, intrinsic in the variational method, of neglecting such a dependence.
 Finally we have introduced the three-body forces (TBF) in the calculations, both in the LOCV and the BBG schemes. It is well known that TBF are necessary if the phenomenological saturation point of nuclear matter has to be reproduced. At the level of two-body correlation approximation, as BHF and LOCV, the TBF are reduced to an effective two-body force by averaging on the position and on spin-isospin of the third particle \cite{andre}. The averaging involves the two-body correlation itself. In principle the original TBF can be derived within the nucleon-meson model of nuclear forces. This procedure turns out to have only a limited success \cite{ZHLi1,ZHLi2} and requires in any case the tuning of the parameters (masses and coupling constants) to get a reasonable saturation point. The latter can be obtained only with the Bonn B potential \cite{BonnB,Adv} as two-body forces \cite{ZHLi1,ZHLi2}.
 We prefer to follow a more pragmatic point of view.  We used the Urbana IX model and treated the TBF according to the method adopted in ref. \cite{lidia}, where the averaging is performed by using a schematic two-body correlation function. We then tune the (two) parameters of  the TBF to get a good saturation point for BHF and we use the same values in LOCV. Around saturation the contribution of TBF is relatively small in absolute value, about 1-3 MeV, in comparison with the total correlation energy that is about -40 MeV at this density. It is slightly repulsive, and as a consequence the two-body wave function is further reduced. This is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:def3s1tbf}. Since the effect is quite small, as expected by the relatively weakness of the TBF, Fig. \ref{fig:def3s1tbf}b shows a blow up of the small distance region. It looks that the effect of the TBF is slightly larger for the BHF method.
 \section{Discussion and conclusion}
We have studied the correlation properties of nuclear matter both in the variational
LOCV method and in the BHF scheme. In particular we have shown that one can identify the variational (generalized) Jastrow factor $F_V(r)$ with the BHF correlation function $F_B(r) \,=\, 1\,+\,g(r)$,
where $g(r)$ is the so-called Defect Function. Despite the additional total and relative momentum dependence of $F_B$, not present in $F_V$, and the different method of approximation, it turns out that the two correlation functions are quantitatively quite similar. This is true for each two-body channel, with or without the inclusion of the three-body forces. To see the possible relation of the small differences between the LOCV and BHF correlation functions to other nuclear matter properties,
we have computed the nuclear matter Equation of State (EOS) in the two theoretical schemes. The results are reported in Fig. \ref{fig:EOS}. The two lower curves, labelled 2BF, correspond to the EOS with two-body forces only, while the two upper curves, labelled 2BF \,+\, 3BF, correspond to the EOS when the (same) three-body forces are also included. One can notice that the two EOS are much more similar when the three-body forces are included. This is in line with the similar finding \cite{shaban} that the EOS' s with different NN interactions become much closer when the (same) three-body force is included.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Nuclear matter correlation energy per particle
in LOCV and in BHF as a function of the density $\rho$. The first column (K.E.)
for LOCV gives the modification of the kinetic energy due to the two-body
correlation,
the second one (P.E.) the potential part and the third one their
sum. For comparison the BHF total correlation energy is reported in the last column
(BHF). The three-body forces are included. }
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline \hspace*{0.ex} $\rho$(fm$^{-3})$ \hspace*{-0.2ex} & \hspace*{11.6ex}
$LOCV$
\hspace*{10.ex} &$BHF$\hspace*{0.65ex}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}

\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hspace*{8.3ex} & \hspace*{1.5ex} K.E. \hspace*{1.5ex}
& \hspace*{1.5ex} P.E. \hspace*{1.5ex} & \hspace*{1.5ex} TOT
\hspace*{1.5ex} &
\hspace*{2ex}  \hspace*{4ex} \\

\hline

\hspace*{2.ex} 0.10 \hspace*{2.ex}  & 11.24 & -40.75 & -29.51 & -29.24 \\

0.17  & 16.77 & -56.09 & -39.32 & -37.97\\

0.20  & 18.94 & -61.20 & -42.26 & -40.42\\

0.30  & 25.62 & -71.18 & -45.56 & -43.60\\

0.34  & 28.20 & -72.34 & -44.14 & -43.10\\

0.40  & 32.12 & -71.83 & -39.71 & -40.46\\

0.50  & 36.68 & -64.32 & -27.64 & -31.07\\

\hline

\end{tabular}\label{tab_N}
\end{table}
\par
In the variational method the average kinetic energy is affected directly by correlations. The total correlation energy includes a kinetic energy part and a potential part, see Eq. (\ref{eq:W}). The breakdown of the two contributions as a function of density is reported in Table I for the case where TBF are included. For comparison the total potential energy of the BHF calculations is also reported. In the BHF scheme the kinetic energy is not explicitly modified \cite{book}, and the whole correlation energy is
contained in the potential energy coming from the G-matrix contribution. The modification of the kinetic energy is embodied in the momentum dependence of the $G$-matrix and in the self-consistent single particle potential, which also affects the total binding indirectly since it determines the entry energy of the G-matrix. From the results it looks that the connection of the EOS and the details of the correlation function is not so straightforward.
This is apparent if we calculate the correlations functions at twice the saturation density. They are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:def1s0_032_tbf}a for the case with only two-body forces. The agreement between the two correlation looks insensitive to the introduction of the TBF, see Fig. \ref{fig:def1s0_032_tbf}b and indeed quantitatively the disagreement, as anticipated before, is below 2\% for $r > 0.25$fm, with or without TBF.
 Despite small variations can be relevant, it looks unlike that
this deviation can be considered responsible of the fact that the disagreement between
BHF and LOCV is reduced by several MeV at this density once TBF are introduced. It has to be noticed that in BHF there is no  simple way to relate the binding energy to the correlation function, which is not directly involved in the BHF expression for the correlation energy. The change of the binding is clearly due to the direct effect of the change in the nucleon-nucleon force due to the TBF. The only effect of TBF, on the correlation function, see Fig.
\ref{fig:def1s0_032_tbf}b, seems to be a very small decrease at intermediate distance of $F_V$ with respect to $F_B$. This could suggest that the good agreement of the EOS is the result of a redistribution of the attractive and the repulsive contributions to binding. To make easier the qualitative estimate of the relevance of the TBF, we have reported in Fig. \ref{fig:016_032} the comparison of the correlation functions with and without TBF at the densities 0.16 fm$^{-3}$ and 0.32 fm$^{-3}$, both for LOCV and BHF. At increasing density the effect of TBF increases, but the effect looks larger for BHF. Also in this case no systematic trend is observed in relation to the corresponding EOS. It has been found in ref. \cite{Bozek} that also the spectral function has a mild dependence on the presence of TBF.
Beside the EOS, other quantities, like transport coefficients or neutrino and electron scattering cross sections, are probably more directly related to the correlation and spectral function
\cite{Umberto}. The analysis of this point is left to a future work, but in any case no major discrepancy can be expected between BHF and LOCV schemes.

\begin{acknowledgments}
One of the authors (HRM) would like to thank
University of Tehran for partially supporting him under the grants
provided by research council. This work was supported by INFN Sezione di Catania within the national project CT51.
\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Introduction}
Comparable corpora are composed of texts in different languages which are not translations but deal with the same subject matter and were produced in similar situations of communication so that there is  a possibility to find translation pairs in the texts.
Comparable corpora have been used mainly in the field of Cross-Language Information Retrieval
 and Computer-Aided Translation (CAT). In CAT, which is our field of application, comparable corpora have been used to extract domain-specific bilingual lexicons for language pairs or subject domains for which no parallel corpora is available.  Another advantage of comparable corpora is that they contain more idiomatic expressions than parallel corpora do. Indeed, the target texts of parallel corpora are translations and bear the influence of the source language whereas the target texts of comparable corpora are original, spontaneous productions.
 The main drawback of comparable corpora is that much fewer translation pairs can be extracted than in parallel corpora because (i) not all source language terms do have a translation in the target texts and (ii) when there is a translation, it may not be present in its canonical form, precisely because the target texts are not translations. As observed by Baker (1996)\nocite{baker_corpusbased_1996}, translated texts tend to bear features like explication, simplification, normalization and leveling out. For instance, an English-French comparable corpus may contain the English term \emph{post-menopausal} but not its ``normalized'' or ``canonical'' translation in French (\emph{post-m\'enopausique}). However, there might be some morphological or paraphrastic variants in the French texts like \emph{post-m\'enopause 'post-menopause'} or \emph{apr\`es la m\'enopause 'after the menopause'}.
The solution that consists in increasing the size of the corpus in order to find more translation pairs or to extract parallel segments of text  \cite{fung_mining_2004,rauf_use_2009} is only possible when large amounts of texts are available. In the case of the extraction of \emph{domain-specific} lexicons, we quickly face the problem of data scarcity: in order to extract high-quality lexicons, the corpus must contain text dealing with very specific subject domains and the target and source texts must be highly comparable. If one tries to increase the size of the corpus, one takes the risk of decreasing its quality by lowering its comparability or adding out-of-domain texts. Studies support the idea that the quality of the corpora is more important than its size. Morin et al. (2007) \nocite{morin_bilingual_2007} show that the discourse categorization of the documents increases the precision of the lexicon despite the data sparsity. Bo and Gaussier (2010) \nocite{bo_improving_2010} show that they improve the quality of a lexicon if they improve the comparability of the corpus by selecting a smaller - but more comparable - corpus  from an initial set of documents.
Consequently, one solution for increasing the number or translation pairs is to focus on identifying translation variants. This paper explores the feasibility of identifying "\emph{fertile}" translations in comparable corpora. In parallel texts processing, the notion of fertility has been defined by Brown et al. (1993)\nocite{brown_mathematics_1993}. They defined the fertility of a source word $e$ as the number of target words to which $e$ is connected in a randomly selected alignment. Similarly, we call a fertile translation a translation pair in which the target term has more words than the source term.
We propose to identify such translations with a method mixing  morphological analysis and compositional translation : (i) the source term is decomposed into morphemes:   \emph{post-menopausal} is split into  \emph{post- + menopause}\footnote{We use the following notations for morphemes: trailing hyphen for prefixes (\emph{a-}), leading hyphen for suffixes (\emph{-a}), both for confixes (\emph{-a-}) and no hyphen for autonomous morphemes (\emph{a}). Morpheme boundaries are represented by a plus sign (\emph{+}).}  ; (ii) the morphemes are translated as bound morphemes or fully autonomous words:  \emph{post-} becomes \emph{post-} or \emph{apr\`es} and  \emph{menopause} becomes \emph{m\'enopause}  and (iii) the translated elements are recomposed into a target term: \emph{post-m\'enopause},  \emph{apr\`es la m\'enopause}.

This paper falls into 4 sections.
Section \ref{sec:related} outlines recent research in compositionality-based lexicon extraction.
Section \ref{sec:mct} explains the algorithm of morpho-compositional translation. Experimental data and results and described in sections \ref{sec:data}  and \ref{sec:evaluation}.

\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
Most of the research work in lexicon extraction from comparable corpora concentrates on same-length term alignment. To our knowledge, only Daille and Morin (2005)\nocite{daille_frenchenglish_2005} and Weller et al. (2011) \nocite{weller_simple_2011} tried to align terms of different lengths. Daille and Morin (2005)\nocite{daille_frenchenglish_2005} focus on the specific case of multi-word terms  whose meanings are non-compositional and tried to align these multi-word terms with either single-word terms or multi-word terms using a context-based approach\footnote{Context-based methods were introduced by Rapp (1995) and Fung (1997)\nocite{rapp_identifying_1995, fung_finding_1997}. They consist in comparing the contexts in which the source and target terms occur. Their drawback is that they need the source and target terms to be very frequent.}
 Weller et al. (2011)\nocite{weller_simple_2011} concentrate on aligning German \textsc{Noun-Noun} compounds to \textsc{Noun Noun} and \textsc{Noun Prep Noun} structures in French and English.

We chose to work in the framework of compositionality-based translation because:
(i)  compositional terms form more than 60\% of the new terms found in techno-scientific domains, and especially in the field of biomedecine \cite{namer_defining_2007}
(ii) compositionality-based methods have been  shown to clearly outperform context-based ones for the translation of terms with compositional meaning \cite{morin_compositionality_2010}
(iii) we believe that compositionality-based methods offer the opportunity to generate fertile translations if combined with a morphology-based approach.

\subsection{Principle of compositional translation}
\label{sec:compo_approach}
Compositional translation relies on the principle of compositionality which states that
``the meaning of the whole is a function of the meaning of the parts'' \cite[24-25]{keenan_boolean_1985}.  Applied to bilingual lexicon extraction, compositional translation ($\mathcal{CT}$) consists in decomposing the source term into atomic components ($\mathcal{D}$), translating these components into the target language ($\mathcal{T}$), recomposing the translated components into target terms ($\mathcal{R}$) and finally filtering the generated translations with a selection function ($\mathcal{S}$):
{\center \small
\begin{quote}
$\mathcal{CT}\text{(``ab'')}$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(T(D(}\text{``ab''}))))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(T(} \text{\{a, b\}})))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(}\{\mathcal{T}\text{(a)}\times\mathcal{T}\text{(b)}\}))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(}\text{\{\textsc{a, b}\}}))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(}\text{\{\textsc{a, b}\}, \{\textsc{b, a}\}})$\\
$~=\text{``\textsc{ba}''}$\\
$~$ \\
\end{quote}
}
where ``ab'' is a source term composed of \emph{a} and \emph{b}, ``$\textsc{ba}$'' is a target term composed of $\textsc{b}$ and $\textsc{a}$ and there exists a bilingual resource linking \emph{a} to $\textsc{a}$ and \emph{b} to $\textsc{b}$.

\subsection{Implementations of compositional translation}
\label{sec_implementations}
Existing implementations differ on the kind of atomic components they use for translation.

 {\bf Lexical compositional translation} \cite{grefenstette_world_1999,baldwin_translation_2004,robitaille_compiling_2006,morin_compositionality_2010} deals with multi-word term to multi-word term alignment  and uses lexical words\footnote{as opposed to grammatical words: preposition, determiners, etc.} as atomic components : \emph{rate of evaporation} is translated into French \emph{taux d'\'evaporation} by translating  \emph{rate} as \emph{taux} and \emph{evaporation} as \emph{\'evaporation} using  dictionary lookup. Recomposition may be done by permutating the translated components \cite{morin_compositionality_2010} or with translation patterns \cite{baldwin_translation_2004}.

{\bf Sublexical compositional translation} deals with single-word term translation. The atomic components are subparts of the source single-word term. Cartoni (2009)\nocite{cartoni_lexical_2009} translates neologisms created by prefixation with a special formalism called Bilingual Lexeme Formation Rules. Atomic components are the prefix and the lexical base: Italian neologism \emph{anticonstituzionale 'anticonstitution'} is translated into French \emph{anticonstitution} by translating the prefix \emph{anti-} as \emph{anti-} and the lexical base \emph{constituzionale} as \emph{constitution}.
Weller et al. (2011) \nocite{weller_simple_2011} translate two types of single-word term. German single-word term formed by the concatenation of two neoclassical roots are decomposed into these two roots, then the roots are translated into target language roots and recomposed into an English or French single-word term, e.g. \emph{Kalori$_1$metrie$_2$} is translated as \emph{calori$_1$metry$_2$}. German  \textsc{Noun$_1$-Noun$_2$} compounds are translated into French and English \textsc{Noun$_1 $Noun$_2$} or \textsc{Noun$_1$ Prep Noun$_2$} multi-word term, e.g. \emph{Elektronen$_{N1}$-mikroskop$_{N2}$} is translated as \emph{electron$_{N1}$ microscope$_{N2}$}.

\subsection{Challenges of compositional translation}
\label{sec_challenges}
Compositional translation faces four main challenges which are
{\bf (i) morphosyntactic variation:} source and target terms' morphosyntactic structures are different:
\emph{anti-\underline{cancer}$_{\textsc{Noun}}$ $\rightarrow$ anti-\underline{canc\'ereux}$_{\textsc{Adj}}$ 'anti-cancerous'} ;
{\bf (ii) lexical variation:} source and target terms contain semantically related - but not equivalent - words: \emph{\underline{machine} translation $\rightarrow$ traduction \underline{automatique} 'automatic translation'} ;
{\bf (iii) fertility:} the target term has more content words than the source term: \emph{isothermal \underline{snowpack} $\rightarrow$ \underline{manteau} \underline{neigeux} isotherme 'isothermal snow mantel'} ;
{\bf (iv) terminological variation:} a source term can be translated as different target terms:
\emph{oophorectomy $\rightarrow$ ovariectomie 'oophorectomy', ablation des ovaires 'removal of the ovaries'}.

Solutions to morphosyntactic, lexical and to some extent terminological variation have been proposed in the form of thesaurus lookup \cite{robitaille_compiling_2006}, morphological derivation rules \cite{morin_compositionality_2010}, morphological variant dictionaries \cite{cartoni_lexical_2009} or morphosyntactic translation patterns \cite{baldwin_translation_2004,weller_simple_2011}. Fertility has been addressed by Weller et al. (2011)\nocite{weller_simple_2011} for the specific case of German \textsc{Noun-Noun} compounds.

\section{Morpho-compositional translation}
\label{sec:mct}
\subsection{Underlying assumptions}
Morpho-compositional translation (morpho-compositional translation) relies on the following assumptions:

{\bf Lexical subcompositionality.}
The lexical items which compose a multi-word term or a single-word term may be split into semantically-atomic components. These components may be either
{\bf free} (i.e. they can occur in texts as autonomous lexical items  like \emph{toxicity} in \emph{cardiotoxicity}) or
{\bf bound} (i.e. they cannot occur as autonomous lexical items, in that case they correspond to bound morphemes like \emph{-cardio-} in \emph{cardiotoxicity}).

{\bf Irrelevance of the bound/free feature in translation.}
Translation occurs regardless of the components' degree of freedom: \emph{-cardio-} may be translated as \emph{c\oe{}ur 'heart'} as in \emph{cardiotoxicity} $\rightarrow$ \emph{toxicit\'e pour le c\oe{}ur 'toxicity to the heart'}.

{\bf Irrelevance of the bound/free feature in allomorphy.}
Allomorphy happens regardless of the components' degree of freedom: \emph{-cardio-, c\oe{}ur 'heart', cardiaque 'cardiac'} are possible instantiations of the same abstract component and may lead to terminological variation as in \emph{cardiotoxicity} $\rightarrow$ \emph{cardiotoxicit\'e 'cardiotoxicity', toxicit\'e pour le c\oe{}ur 'toxicity to the heart', toxicit\'e cardiaque 'cardiac toxicity'}.

Like other sublexical approaches, the main idea behind  morpho-compositional translation is to go beyond the word level and work with subword components. In our case, these components are morpheme-like items which either (i) bear referential lexical meaning like confixes\footnote{we use the term \emph{confix} as a synonym of  neoclassical roots (Latin or Ancient Greek root words).} (\emph{-cyto-, -bio-, -ectomy-}) and autonomous lexical items (\emph{cancer, toxicity}) or (ii) can substantially change the meaning of a word, especially prefixes (\emph{anti-, post-, co-...}) and some suffixes (\emph{-less, -like...}).
Unlike other approaches, morpho-compositional translation is not limited to small set of source-to-target structure equivalences. It takes as input a single morphologically constructed word unit which can be the result of prefixation '\emph{pretreatment}', confixation '\emph{densitometry}', suffixation '\emph{childless}', compounding '\emph{anastrozole-associated'} or any combinations of the four. It outputs a list of $n$ words who may or may not be morphologically constructed. For instance,  \emph{postoophorectomy} may be translated as \emph{postovariectomie 'postoophorectomy', apr\`es l'ovariectomie 'after the oophorectomy'} or \emph{apr\`es l'ablation des ovaires 'after the removal of the ovaries'}.

\subsection{Algorithm}
As an example, we show the translation of the  adjective \emph{cytotoxic} into French using a toy dataset.  Let $Comp^l_{type}$ be a list of components in language $l$ where $type$ equals $pref$ for prefixes, $conf$ for confixes, $suff$ for suffixes and $free$ for free lexical units ; $Trans$ be the translation table which maps source and target components ; $Var^l$ be a table mapping related lexical units in language $l$ ;  $Stop^l$ a list of stopwords in language $l$ ; $Corpus^l$ a lemmatized, pos-tagged corpus in language $l$:
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l}
$ Comp^{en}_{conf} = \{\text{-cyto-}\}$ ;\\
$ Comp^{en}_{free} =\{\text{cytotoxic, cytotoxicity, toxic}\}$ ;\\
$ Comp^{fr}_{conf} = \{\text{-cyto-}\}$ ;\\
$ Comp^{fr}_{free} = \{\text{cellule, toxique}\}$ ;\\
$Trans = \{\{\text{-cyto-} \rightarrow \text{-cyto-}, \text{cellule}\},$\\
\qquad\qquad$\{\text{toxic} \rightarrow \text{toxique}\}\}$ ;\\
$Var^{en} = \{\text{cytoxic} \rightarrow \text{cytoxicity}\}$ ;\\
$ Stop^{fr} = \{\text{pour}, \text{le}\}$ ;\\
$Corpus^{fr} = \text{``le/\textsc{det} cytotoxicit\'e/\textsc{n} \^etre/\textsc{aux} le/\textsc{det}}$\\
$\text{propri\'et\'e/\textsc{n} de/\textsc{prep} ce/\textsc{det} qui/\textsc{pro} \^etre/\textsc{aux}}$\\
$\text{toxique/\textsc{a} pour/\textsc{prep} le/\textsc{det} cellule/\textsc{n} ./\textsc{pun}''}$ ;\\
'\emph{The cytotoxicity is the property of what is toxic to}\\
\emph{the cells.}'
\end{tabular}}

~\\
Morpho-compositional translation  takes as input a source language single-word term and outputs zero or several target language single-word terms or multi-word terms. It is the result of the sequential application of four functions to the input single-word term: decomposition ($\mathcal{D}$), translation ($\mathcal{T}$), recomposition ($\mathcal{R}$) and selection ($\mathcal{S}$).

\subsubsection{Decomposition function}
The decomposition function $ \mathcal{D}$ works in two steps $ \mathcal{D}_1$ and $ \mathcal{D}_2$.

{\bf Step 1 of decomposition ($ \mathcal{D}_1$) } splits the input single-word term into minimal components by matching substrings of the single-word term with the resources $Comp^{src}$, $Comp^{src}_{conf}$, $Comp^{src}_{suff}$, $Comp^{src}_{free}$ and respecting some length constraints on the substrings. For example, one may split a single-word term $SWT_{1,n}$ of $n$ characters into prefix $Pref_{1,i}$ and lexical base  $LexBase_{i+1,n}$ provided that $SWT_{1,i} \in Comp^{src}_{pref}$ and $SWT_{i+1,n} \in Comp^{src}_{free}$ and $n-i > \mathcal{L}0 $ ; $ \mathcal{L}0 $ being empirically set to 5. A single-word term is first split into an optional prefixe + base$_1$, then base$_1$ is split into base$_2$ + optional suffix, then base$_2$ is split into one or several confixes or lexical items. When several splittings are possible, only the ones with the highest number of minimal components are retained.
\begin{quote}\small
$\mathcal{S(R(T(D}_2\mathcal{(D}_1(\text{``cytotoxic'''})))))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(T(D}_2( \text{\{cyto, toxic\}}))))$
\end{quote}

{\bf Step 2 of decomposition ($ \mathcal{D}_2$) } gives out all possible decompositions of the single-word term by enumerating the different concatenations of its minimal components. For example, if single-word term ``abc'' has been split into minimal components \{a,b,c\}, then it has 4 possible decompositions: \{abc\}, \{a,bc\}, \{ab,c\}, \{a,b,c\}. For a single-word term having $n$ minimal components, there exists $2^{n-1}$ possible decompositions.
\begin{quote}\small
$\mathcal{S(R(T(D}_2( \text{\{cyto, toxic\}}))))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(T(} \text{\{cyto, toxic\}, \{cytotoxic\}})))$
\end{quote}

The concatenation of the minimal components into bigger components increases the chances of finding translations. For example, consider the single-word term \emph{non-cytotoxic} and a dictionary having translations for \emph{non}, \emph{cyto} and \emph{cytotoxic} but no translation for \emph{toxic}. If we stick to the sole output of $ \mathcal{D}_1$ \emph{\{non-,-cyto-,toxic\}}, the translation of \emph{non-cytotoxic} will fail because there is no translation for \emph{toxic}. Whereas if we also consider the output of $ \mathcal{D}_2$ which contains the decomposition \emph{\{non-,cytotoxic\}}, we will be able to translate \emph{non-cytotoxic} because the dictionary has an entry for \emph{cytotoxic}.

\subsubsection{Translation function}
The translation function $ \mathcal{T}$ provides translations for each decomposition output by $\mathcal{D}$. Applying the compositionality principle to translation, we consider that the translation of the whole is a function of the translation of the parts: $ \mathcal{T}(a,b) \cong \mathcal{T}(a) \times \mathcal{T}(b)$. For a given decomposition $\{c_1, ...c_n\}$ having $n$ components, there exists $ \prod^n_ {i=1}|\mathcal{T}(c_i)|$ possible translations.
Components' translations are obtained using the $Trans$ and $Var$ resources: $\mathcal{T}(c) = Trans(c) ~\cup~ Trans(Var^{src}(c)) ~\cup ~Var^{tgt}(Trans(c))$. If one of the component cannot be translated, the translation of the whole decomposition fails.

\begin{quote}\small
$\mathcal{S(R(T(} \text{\{cyto, toxic\}, \{cytotoxic\}})))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(}\mathcal{T}(\text{cyto})\times\mathcal{T}(\text{toxic}),\mathcal{T}(\text{cytotoxic})))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R(}\text{\{cyto, toxique\},\{cellule, toxique\},}$\\
$~\text{ \{cytotoxicit\'e\}}))$\\
\end{quote}

\subsubsection{Recomposition function}
The recomposition function $\mathcal{R}$ takes as input the translations outputted by $\mathcal{T}$ and recomposes them into sequences of one or several lexical items. It takes place in two steps.

{\bf Step 1 of recomposition ($\mathcal{R}_1$) } generates, for a given translation of $n$ items, all of the $n!$ possible permutations of these items.
As a general rule, $O(n!)$ procedures should be avoided but we are permuting small sets (up to 4 items). This captures the fact that components' order may be different in the source and target language (distortion).
Once the components have been permutated, we generate, for each permutation, all the different concatenations of its components into lexical items (like it is done in step 2 of decomposition).
\begin{quote}\small
$\mathcal{S(R}_2\mathcal{(R}_1(\text{\{cyto,toxique\},\{cellule,toxique\},}$\\
$\text{ \{cytotoxicit\'e\}}))) $\\
$~=\mathcal{S(R}_2(\text{\{cyto,toxique\}, \{cytotoxique\},}$\\
$\text{\{toxique,cyto\}, \{toxiquecyto\}, \{cellule, toxique\},}$\\
$\text{\{celluletoxique\}, \{toxique, cellule\},}$\\
$\text{\{toxiquecellule\}, \{cytotoxicit\'e\}}))$
\end{quote}

{\bf Step 2 of recomposition ($\mathcal{R}_2$) } filters out the ouput of $\mathcal{R}_1$ using heuristic rules. For example, a sequence of lexical items $L = \{l_1, ...l_n\}$ would be filtered out provided that $ \exists ~ l \in L ~ | ~ l \in Comp^{tgt}_{pref} \cup Comp^{tgt}_{conf} \cup Comp^{tgt}_{suff}$, i.e. recomposition $\{\text{cytotoxique}\}$ would be accepted but not $\{\text{-cyto-}, \text{toxique}\}$ because \emph{-cyto-} is a bound component (it should not appear as an autonomous lexical item).

\begin{quote}\small
$\mathcal{S(R}_2(\text{\{cyto,toxique\}, \{cytotoxique\},}$\\
$\text{\{toxique,cyto\}, \{toxiquecyto\}, \{cellule, toxique\},}$\\
$\text{\{celluletoxique\}, \{toxique, cellule\},}$\\
$\text{\{toxiquecellule\}, \{cytotoxicit\'e\}}))$\\
$~=\mathcal{S(}\text{\{cytotoxique\}, \{toxiquecyto\},}$\\
$\text{\{cellule, toxique\}, \{celluletoxique\},}$\\
$\text{\{toxique, cellule\}, \{toxiquecellule\}, \{cytotoxicit\'e\}})$
\end{quote}

These concatenations correspond to the final lexical units which will be matched against the target corpus with the selection function. For example,  the concatenation $\{\text{toxique}_\textsc{a}, \text{cellule}_\textsc{b}\}$ corresponds to a translation made of two distinct lexical items: \emph{toxique} followed by \emph{cellule}. The concatenation $\{\text{cytotoxique}_\textsc{ab}\}$ corresponds to only one lexical item: \emph{cytotoxique}.

\subsubsection{Selection function}
The selection function $ \mathcal{S}$ tries to match the sequences of lexical items outputted by $ \mathcal{R}$ with the lemmas of the tokens of the target corpus.
We call $T = \{t_1, ...t_m\}$ a sequence of tokens from the target corpus, $l(t_k)$ the lemma of token $t_k$ and $p(t_k)$  the part-of-speech of token $t_k$.
We call $L = \{l_1, ...l_n\}$ a sequence of lexical items outputted by $ \mathcal{R}$.
$L$ matches $T$ if
there exists a strictly increasing sequence of indices $I = \{i_1, ...i_n\}$
such as $l(t_{i_{j}}) = l_j$
and $\forall j , 1 \leq j \leq n$
and $\forall i , 1 \leq |i_{j-1} - i_j| \leq \mathcal{L}1$
and
$\forall t_k | ~ k \notin I, ~ l(t_k) \in Stop^{tgt} $ ; $\mathcal{L}1$  being empirically set to 3.
\begin{quote}\small
$ ~ =\mathcal{S(}\text{\{cytotoxique\}, \{toxiquecyto\},}$\\
$ \text{\{cellule, toxique\}, \{celluletoxique\},}$\\
$ \text{\{toxique, cellule\}, \{toxiquecellule\}, \{cytotoxicit\'e\}}) $\\
$ ~ =\text{``cytotoxicit\'e/\textsc{n}'', ``toxique/\textsc{a} pour/\textsc{prep} le/\textsc{det}}$\\
$ \text{cellule/\textsc{n}''}$\\
'\emph{cytotoxicity}', '\emph{toxic to the cells}'
\end{quote}
In other words, $L$ is a subsequence of the lemmas of $T$ and we allow at maximum $\mathcal{L}1$ closed-class words between two tokens which match the lemmas of $L$.

For a given sequence of lexical items $L$, we collect from the target corpus all sequences of tokens $T_1, T_2, ... T_p$ which match $L$ according to our above-mentioned definition. We consider two sequences $T1$ and $T2$ to be equivalent candidate translations if $ |T1| = |T2| $ and $\forall (t1_i, t2_j) $ such that $ t1 \in T1, t2 \in T2, i=j $ then $ l(t1_i) = l(t2_j) $ and $ p(t1_i) = p(t2_j) $, i.e. if two sequences of tokens correspond to the same sequence of (lemma, pos) pairs, these two sequences are considered as the same candidate translation.

\section{Experimental data}
\label{sec:data}
We worked with three languages: English as source language and French and German as target languages.

\subsection{Corpora}
Our corpus is composed of specialized texts from the medical domain dealing with breast cancer. We define specialized texts as texts being produced by domain experts and directed towards either an expert or a non-expert readership \cite{bowker_working_2002}. The texts were manually collected from scientific papers portals and from information websites targeted to breast cancer patients and their relatives. Each corpus has approximately 400k words (cf. table~\ref{table_corpus_size}). All the texts were pos-tagged and lemmatized using the linguistic analysis suite \textsc{Xelda}\footnote{\scriptsize\url{http://www.temis.com}}. We also computed the comparability of the corpora. We used the comparability measure defined by \cite{bo_improving_2010} which indicates, given a bilingual dictionary, the expectation of finding  for each source word of the source corpus its translation in the target corpus and \emph{vice-versa}. The English-French corpus' comparability is 0.71 and the English-German corpus' comparability is 0.45. The difference in comparability can be explained by the fact that German texts on breast cancer were hard to find (especially scientific papers): we had to collect texts in which breast cancer was not the main topic.
\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
\hline
Readership&EN&FR&DE\\ \hline
 \hline
experts&218.3k&267.2k&197.2k\\
non-experts &198.2k&184.5k&201.7k\\
\hline \hline
TOTAL &416.5k&451.75k&398.9k\\
\hline  \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Composition and size of corpora in words}
 \label{table_corpus_size}
\end{table}

\subsection{Source terms}
\label{sec_source_terms}
We tested our algorithm on a set of source terms extracted from the English texts. The extraction was done in a semi-supervised manner.
\textbf{Step 1:} We wrote a short seed list of English bound morphemes.  We automatically extracted from the English texts all the words that contained these morphemes. For example, we extracted the words \emph{postchemotherapy} and \emph{poster} because they contained the string \emph{post-} which corresponds to a bound morpheme of English.
\textbf{Step 2:} The extracted words were sorted : those which were not morphologically constructed were eliminated (like \emph{poster}), and those which were morphologically constructed were kept (like \emph{postchemotherapy}). The morphologically constructed words were manually split into morphemes. For example,  \emph{postchemotherapy} was split into \emph{post-, -chemo-} and \emph{therapy}.
\textbf{Step 3:} If some bound morphemes which were not in the initial seed list were found when we split the words during step 2, we started the whole process again, using the new bound morphemes to extract new morphologically constructed words.
We also added hyphenated terms like \emph{ER-positive} to our list of source terms.

We obtained a set 2025 English terms with this procedure. For our experiments, we excluded from this set the source terms which had a translation in the general language dictionary and whose translation was present in the target texts. The final test set for English-to-French experiments contains 1839 morphologically constructed source terms. The test set for English-to-German contains 1824 source terms.

\subsection{Resources used in the translation step $\mathcal{T}$}
\label{sec_translation_resources}
Tables~\ref{tab:ress_trans} and \ref{tab:ress_var} show the size of the resources we used for translation.

\textbf{General language dictionary} We used the general language dictionary which is part of the linguistic analysis suite  \textsc{Xelda}.

\textbf{Domain-specific dictionary} We built this resource automatically by extracting pairs of cognates from the comparable corpora. We used the same technique as \cite{hauer_clustering_2011}: a SVM classifier trained on examples taken from online dictionaries\footnote{\scriptsize \url{http: //www.dicts.info/uddl.php}}.

\textbf{Morpheme translation table} To our knowledge, there exists no publicly available morphology-based bilingual dictionary.
Consequently, we  asked translators to create an \emph{ad hoc} morpheme translation table for our experiment. This morpheme translation table links the English bound morphemes contained in the source terms to their French or German equivalents. The equivalents can be bound morphemes or lexical items.

In order to handle the variation phenomena described in section~\ref{sec_challenges}, we used a \textbf{dictionary of  synonyms} and lists of  \textbf{morphologically related words}. The dictionary of synonyms is the one part  of the \textsc{Xelda} linguistic analyzer. The lists of morphologically related words were built by stemming the words of the comparable corpora and the entries of the bilingual dictionary with a simple stemming algorithm
 \cite{porter_algorithm_1980}.

\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
\hline
& EN$\rightarrow$FR&EN$\rightarrow$DE \\ \hline
\hline
General language&38k$\rightarrow$60k&38k$\rightarrow$70k\\ \hline  \hline
Domain-specific&6.7k$\rightarrow$6.7k&6.4k$\rightarrow$6.4k\\ \hline  \hline
Morphemes (\textsc{total})&242$\rightarrow$729&242$\rightarrow$761\\ \hline
$\qquad$prefixes&50$\rightarrow$134&50$\rightarrow$166\\ \hline
$\qquad$confixes&185$\rightarrow$574&185$\rightarrow$563\\ \hline
$\qquad$suffixes&7$\rightarrow$21&7$\rightarrow$32\\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Nb. of entries in the multilingual resources}
\label{tab:ress_trans}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
\hline
& EN$\rightarrow$EN&FR$\rightarrow$FR&DE$\rightarrow$DE \\ \hline
\hline
Synonyms&5.1k$\rightarrow$7.6k&2.4k$\rightarrow$3.2k&4.2k$\rightarrow$4.9k\\ \hline
Morphol.&5.9k$\rightarrow$15k&7.1k$\rightarrow$18k&7.4k$\rightarrow$16k\\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Nb. of entries in the monolingual resources}
\label{tab:ress_var}
\end{table}

\subsection{Resources used in the decomposition step ($\mathcal{D}$)}
The decomposition function uses the entries of the bound morphemes translation table (242 entries) and a list of  85k lexical items composed of the entries of the general language dictionary and English words extracted from the Leipzig Corpus~\cite{quasthoff_corpus_2006} which is a general language corpus.

\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}

\subsection{Evaluation metrics}
As explained in section~\ref{sec_implementations}, compositional translation consists in \emph{generating} candidate translations. These candidate translations can be filtered out with a classifier \cite{baldwin_translation_2004}, by keeping only the translations which occur in the target texts of the corpus \cite{weller_simple_2011,morin_compositionality_2010} or by using a search engine \cite{robitaille_compiling_2006}.
Unlike alignment evaluation in parallel texts, there is no reference alignmens to which the selected translations can be compared and we cannot use standard evaluation metrics like AER \cite{och_comparison_2000}. It is also difficult to find reference lexicons in specific domains since the goal of the extraction process is to create such lexicons. Furthermore, we also wish to evaluate if the algorithm can identify non-canonical translations which, by definition, can not be found in a reference lexicon. Usually, the candidate translations are annotated manually as \emph{correct} or \emph{incorrect} by native speakers. Baldwin and Takana (2004) \nocite{baldwin_translation_2004} use two standards for evaluation: \emph{gold-standard}, \emph{silver-standard}. Gold-standard is the set of candidate translations which correspond to canonical, reference translations. Silver-standard corresponds to the gold-standard translations plus the translations which ``capture the basic semantics of the source language expression and allow the source language expression to be recovered with reasonable confidence'' (op. cit.).

The first evaluation metric is the \emph{precision} $P$ which is the number of correct candidate translations $|Corr|$ over the total number of generated candidate translations $|A|$: $P = \frac{|Corr|}{|A|}$.
In addition to precision, we propose to indicate the \emph{coverage}  $C$ of the lexicon, i.e. the proportion of source terms ($\textsc{st}$) which obtained at least one candidate translation regardless of its accuracy:
\begin{equation*}
C = \frac{ \sum^{|\textsc{st}|}_{i=1} \alpha (\textsc{st}_i)}{|\textsc{st}|}
\end{equation*}
were $\alpha (\textsc{st}_i) $ returns $1$ if $|A(\textsc{st}_i)| \geq 1$ else $0$.
As augmenting coverage tends to lower precision, we also compute $OQ$, the \emph{overall quality} of the lexicon, to get  an idea of the coverage/precision tradeoff:  $OQ= P \times C$.

\subsection{Results}

Compositional-translation methods give better results when they are applied to general language texts rather than domain-specific texts. This is due to the fact that the translations of the components can be easily found in dictionaries since they belong to the general language and it is also easier to collect large corpora. \textbf{Working with general language texts}, Baldwin and Takana (2004)\nocite{baldwin_translation_2004} were able to generate candidate translations for 92\% of their source terms and they report 43\% (gold-standard) to 84\% (silver standard) of correct translations. The size of their corpus exceeds 80M words for each language. Cartoni (2009)\nocite{cartoni_lexical_2009} works on the translation of prefixed Italian neologisms into French. He considers that the generated neologisms have a ``confirmed existence'' if they occur more than five times on Internet. He finds that between 42\% and 94\% of the generated neologisms fall into that category.
\textbf{Regarding domain-specific translation}, Robitaille et al. (2006)\nocite{robitaille_compiling_2006} use a search engine to build corpus from the web and incrementally collect translation pairs. They start with a list of 9.6 pairs (on average) with a precision of 92\% and end up with a final output of 19.6 pairs on average with a precision of 81\%. Morin and Daille (2009)\nocite{morin_compositionality_2010} could generate candidate translations for 15\% of their source terms and they report 88\% of correct alignments. The size of their corpus is 700k words per language.   Weller et al. (2011)\nocite{weller_simple_2011} were able to generate 8\% of correct French translations and 18\% of correct English translations for their 2000 German compounds. Their corpus contains approximately 1.5M words per language.

We ran the morpho-compositional translation prototype on the set of  source terms described in section~\ref{sec_source_terms}.
The output candidate translations were manually annotated by two translators. Like Baldwin and Takana (2004), we used three annotation values: canonical translation, recoverable translation and incorrect.  In our case, recoverable translations correspond paraphrastic and morphological translation variants. For example, the canonical translation for \emph{post-menauposal} is \emph{post-m\'enopausique}. Recoverable translations are \emph{post-m\'enopause 'post-menopause'} and \emph{apr\`es la m\'enopause 'after the menopause'}. Fertile translations can be canonical translations if a non-fertile translation would have been more awkward. For example, the canonical translation for \emph{oestrogen-sensitive} is \emph{sensible aux \oe{}strog\`enes 'sensitive to oestrogens'}. A non-fertile translation would sound very unnatural.
 We computed  inter-annotator agreement on a set of 100 randomly selected candidate translations. We used the Kappa statistics \cite{carletta_assessing_1996} and obtained a high agreement (0.77 for English to German translations and 0.71 for English to French).

First, we tested the impact of the linguistic resources described in section~\ref{sec_translation_resources}  (B for \underline{B}aseline dictionaries, D for \underline{D}omain-specific dictionary, S for \underline{S}ynonyms, M for \underline{M}orphologically related words).  We also tested a simple \underline{Pre}fix+lemma  translation (Pref) in similar vein to the work of Cartoni (2009) to serve as a line of comparison with our method.
The results are given in tables \ref{tab_scores_fr} and \ref{tab_scores_de}.
The best results in terms of overall quality are obtained with the combination of the baseline and domain-specific dictionaries (BD). Morphologically related words and synonyms increase coverage to the cost of precision.
Regarding English-to-French translations, we were able the generate translations for 26\% of the source terms. The gold-standard precision is 60\% and the silver standard precision is 67\%.
Regarding English-to-German translations, we were able the generate translations for 26\% of the source terms. The gold-standard precision is 39\% and the silver-standard precision is 43\%.
The prefix+lemma translation method has a very high precision (between 84\% and 76\%) but produces very few translations (between 1\% and 2\%).
Coverage and precision scores compare well with other approaches knowing that we have very small domain-specific corpora (400k words per language) and that our approach deals with a large number of morphological constructions. The lower quality of the German translations can be explained by the fact that the English-German corpus is much less comparable than the English-French corpus (0.45 vs. 0.71).

\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|cc|cc}
\hline
	&C	&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{P}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{OQ}\\
	&	&\textsc{gold}	&\textsc{silver}	&\textsc{gold}	&\textsc{silver}\\
\hline \hline
Pref &.01&.84&.9&.01&.01\\
\hline \hline
B&.12&.57&.60&.07&.07\\
BS&.15&.50&.53&.08&.08\\
BM&.23&.28&.37&.06&.09\\
BD&.26&\bf{.60}&\bf{.67}&\bf{.16}&\bf{.17}\\
BSMD&\bf{.39}&.33&.44&.13&\bf{.17}\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Scores for the EN$\rightarrow$FR lexicon}
\label{tab_scores_fr}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|cc|cc}
\hline
	&C	&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{P}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{OQ}\\
	&	&\textsc{gold}	&\textsc{silver}	&\textsc{gold}	&\textsc{silver}\\
\hline \hline
Pref&.02&.76&.86&.02&.02\\
\hline \hline
B&.13&.35&.39&.05&.05\\
BS&.16&.31&.35&.05&.05\\
BM&.22&.23&.29&.05&.06\\
BC&.26&\bf{.39}&\bf{.43}&{\bf.10}&.11\\
BCSM&\bf{.36}&.27&.34&{\bf.10}&\bf{.12}\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Scores for the EN$\rightarrow$DE lexicon}
\label{tab_scores_de}
\end{table}

We also tested the impact of the fertile translations on the quality of the lexicon. Tables ~\ref{tab_diff_scores_fr} and ~\ref{tab_diff_scores_de} show the evaluation scores with and without  fertile translations. As expected, fertile translations enables us to increase the size of the lexicon but they are less accurate than non-fertile translations. Fertile translations increase the overall quality of the English-French lexicon by 4\% to 5\%. This is not the case for English-German translations: fertile translations result in a big drop in precision. The overall quality does not significantly change. This might  be partly due to the low comparability of the corpus but we think that the main reason lies in the morphological type of the languages involved in the translation. It is worth noticing that, if we consider only the non-fertile translations, the English-German lexicon has generally better scores than the English-French one.
In fact, fertile variants are more natural and frequent in French than in German. English and German are Germanic languages with a tendency to build new words by agglutinating words or morphemes into one single word. Noun compounds such as \emph{oestrogen-independent} or \emph{\"Ostrogen-unabh\"angige} are common in these two languages. Conversely, French is a Romance language which prefers to use phrases composed of two nouns and a preposition rather than a single-noun compound (\emph{oestrogen-independent}  would be translated as \emph{ind\'ependant des \oe{}strog\`enes 'independent to oestrogens'}).  It is the same with the bound morpheme/single word alternance. The term \emph{cytoprotection} will be translated into German as \emph{Zellschutz} whereas in French it can be translated as \emph{cytoprotection} or \emph{protection de la cellule 'protection of the cell'}.
\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll|ll|ll}
\hline
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{C}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{P}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{OQ}\\
\hline \hline
&-f&+f&-f&+f&-f&+f\\
\hline	 \hline
\footnotesize B&.04&.12&{\bf.81}&.57&.03&.07\\
\footnotesize BS&.05&.15&.69&.50&.03&.08\\
\footnotesize BM&.11&.23&.20&.28&.02&.06\\
\footnotesize BD&.16&.26&.70&{\bf.60}&{\bf.11}&{\bf.16}\\
\footnotesize BSMD&{\bf.24}&{\bf.39}&.31&.33&.07&.13\\
\hline \hline
avg. gain&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}+11}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}-8.6}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}+4.8}\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Scores without (-f) and with (+f) fertile translations (EN$\rightarrow$FR)}
\label{tab_diff_scores_fr}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\small \center
\rowcolors{1}{white}{gris}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll|ll|ll|ll}
\hline
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{C}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{P}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{OQ}\\
\hline \hline
&-f&+f&-f&+f&-f&+f\\
\hline	 \hline
\footnotesize B&.06&.13&.80&.35&.05&.05\\
\footnotesize BS&.08&.16&.69&.31&.05&.05\\
\footnotesize BM&.12&.22&.40&.23&.05&.05\\
\footnotesize BC&.17&.26&{\bf.65}&{\bf.39}&{\bf.11}&{\bf.10}\\
\footnotesize BCSM&{\bf.24}&.{\bf36}&.43&.27&.10&{\bf.10}\\
\hline \hline
avg. gain&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}+9.2}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}-28.4}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.9}-0.2}\\
\hline	 \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Scores without (-f) and with (+f) fertile translations  (EN$\rightarrow$DE)}
\label{tab_diff_scores_de}
\end{table}

\section{Conclusion and future work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have proposed a method based on the compositionality principle which can extract translations pairs from comparable corpora. It is capable of dealing with a largely variety of morphologically constructed  terms and can generate \emph{fertile} translations.
The added value of the fertile translations is clear-cut for English to French translation but not for English to German translation. The English-German lexicon is better without the fertile translations. It seems that the added-value of fertile translations depends on the morphological type of the languages involved in translation. Future work includes the improvement of the identification of morphological variants. The morphological families extracted by the stemming algorithm are too broad for the purpose of translation. For example, the words \emph{desirability} and \emph{desiring} have the same stem but they are too distant semantically to be used to generate  translation variants. We need to restrict the morphological families to a small set of morphological relations (e.g. noun $\leftrightarrow$ relational adjective links). We will also work out a way to rank the candidate translations. Several lines of research are possible : go beyond the target corpora and learn a language model from a larger target corpus, mix compositional translation with a context-based approach, learn part-of-speech patterns translation probabilities from a parallel corpora (e.g. learning that it is more probable that a noun is translated as another noun or as a noun phrase rather than an adverb). A last improvement could be to gather morpheme correspondences from parallel data.

\bibliographystyle{apalike}