What's the Difference Between Professional Human and Machine Translation? A Blind Multi-language Study on Domain-specific MT

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04781v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 17:55:14 GMT
• Title: What's the Difference Between Professional Human and Machine Translation? A Blind Multi-language Study on Domain-specific MT
• Authors: Lukas Fischer and Samuel L\"aubli
• Abstract summary: Machine translation (MT) has been shown to produce a number of errors that require human post-editing, but the extent to which professional human translation (HT) contains such errors has not yet been compared. We compile pre-translated documents in which MT and HT are interleaved, and ask professional translators to flag errors and post-edit these documents in a blind evaluation. We find that the post-editing effort for MT segments is only higher in two out of three language pairs, and that the number of segments with wrong terminology, omissions, and typographical problems is similar in HT.
• Score: 0.6091702876917281
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine translation (MT) has been shown to produce a number of errors that require human post-editing, but the extent to which professional human translation (HT) contains such errors has not yet been compared to MT. We compile pre-translated documents in which MT and HT are interleaved, and ask professional translators to flag errors and post-edit these documents in a blind evaluation. We find that the post-editing effort for MT segments is only higher in two out of three language pairs, and that the number of segments with wrong terminology, omissions, and typographical problems is similar in HT.

Related papers

• Prompting Large Language Models with Human Error Markings for Self-Correcting Machine Translation [11.351365352611658]
  Post-editing (PE) is still required to correct errors and to enhance term translation quality in specialized domains. We present a pilot study of enhancing translation memories (TM) for the needs of correct and consistent term translation in technical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T12:43:47Z)
• Cyber Risks of Machine Translation Critical Errors : Arabic Mental Health Tweets as a Case Study [3.8779763612314637]
  We introduce an authentic dataset of machine translation critical errors to point to the ethical and safety issues involved in the common use of MT. The dataset comprises mistranslations of Arabic mental health postings manually annotated with critical error types. We also show how the commonly used quality metrics do not penalise critical errors and highlight this as a critical issue that merits further attention from researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T20:24:51Z)
• Do GPTs Produce Less Literal Translations? [20.095646048167612]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as general-purpose language models capable of addressing many natural language generation or understanding tasks. We find that translations out of English (E-X) from GPTs tend to be less literal, while exhibiting similar or better scores on Machine Translation quality metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T10:38:31Z)
• Revisiting Machine Translation for Cross-lingual Classification [91.43729067874503]
  Most research in the area focuses on the multilingual models rather than the Machine Translation component. We show that, by using a stronger MT system and mitigating the mismatch between training on original text and running inference on machine translated text, translate-test can do substantially better than previously assumed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:10Z)
• Discourse Centric Evaluation of Machine Translation with a Densely Annotated Parallel Corpus [82.07304301996562]
  This paper presents a new dataset with rich discourse annotations, built upon the large-scale parallel corpus BWB introduced in Jiang et al. We investigate the similarities and differences between the discourse structures of source and target languages. We discover that MT outputs differ fundamentally from human translations in terms of their latent discourse structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T17:36:41Z)
• Beyond Triplet: Leveraging the Most Data for Multimodal Machine Translation [53.342921374639346]
  Multimodal machine translation aims to improve translation quality by incorporating information from other modalities, such as vision. Previous MMT systems mainly focus on better access and use of visual information and tend to validate their methods on image-related datasets. This paper establishes new methods and new datasets for MMT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T15:02:38Z)
• Tackling Ambiguity with Images: Improved Multimodal Machine Translation and Contrastive Evaluation [72.6667341525552]
  We present a new MMT approach based on a strong text-only MT model, which uses neural adapters and a novel guided self-attention mechanism. We also introduce CoMMuTE, a Contrastive Multimodal Translation Evaluation set of ambiguous sentences and their possible translations. Our approach obtains competitive results compared to strong text-only models on standard English-to-French, English-to-German and English-to-Czech benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T10:18:18Z)
• Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature [35.1398797683712]
  We show that literary translators prefer reference human translations over machine-translated paragraphs at a rate of 84%. We train a post-editing model whose output is preferred over normal MT output at a rate of 69% by experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T18:03:34Z)
• AlphaMWE: Construction of Multilingual Parallel Corpora with MWE Annotations [5.8010446129208155]
  We present the construction of multilingual parallel corpora with annotation of multiword expressions (MWEs) The languages covered include English, Chinese, Polish, and German. We present a categorisation of the error types encountered by MT systems in performing MWE related translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-07T14:28:54Z)
• On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluation [55.02832094101173]
  Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual similarity. This paper concerns ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T22:10:23Z)
• Bootstrapping a Crosslingual Semantic Parser [74.99223099702157]
  We adapt a semantic trained on a single language, such as English, to new languages and multiple domains with minimal annotation. We query if machine translation is an adequate substitute for training data, and extend this to investigate bootstrapping using joint training with English, paraphrasing, and multilingual pre-trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T12:05:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.