Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Recent work has shown that contextualized word representations derived from neural machine translation (NMT) are a viable alternative to such from simple word predictions tasks. This is because the internal understanding that needs to be built in order to be able to translate from one language to another is much more comprehensive. Unfortunately, computational and memory limitations as of present prevent NMT models from using large word vocabularies, and thus alternatives such as subword units (BPE and morphological segmentations) and characters have been used. Here we study the impact of using different kinds of units on the quality of the resulting representations when used to model syntax, semantics, and morphology. We found that while representations derived from subwords are slightly better for modeling syntax, character-based representations are superior for modeling morphology and are also more robust to noisy input.

Summary:
1. We research the impact of employing different categories of subword units on the quality of the produced representations when utilized to model syntax, semantics, and morphology.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 The word "translation" should not appear in your response.
user