Human-Paraphrased References Improve Neural Machine Translation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10245v1
• Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:14:57 GMT
• Title: Human-Paraphrased References Improve Neural Machine Translation
• Authors: Markus Freitag, George Foster, David Grangier, Colin Cherry
• Abstract summary: We show that tuning to paraphrased references produces a system that is significantly better according to human judgment. Our work confirms the finding that paraphrased references yield metric scores that correlate better with human judgment.
• Score: 33.86920777067357
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation comparing candidate translations to human-generated paraphrases of reference translations has recently been proposed by Freitag et al. When used in place of original references, the paraphrased versions produce metric scores that correlate better with human judgment. This effect holds for a variety of different automatic metrics, and tends to favor natural formulations over more literal (translationese) ones. In this paper we compare the results of performing end-to-end system development using standard and paraphrased references. With state-of-the-art English-German NMT components, we show that tuning to paraphrased references produces a system that is significantly better according to human judgment, but 5 BLEU points worse when tested on standard references. Our work confirms the finding that paraphrased references yield metric scores that correlate better with human judgment, and demonstrates for the first time that using these scores for system development can lead to significant improvements.

Related papers

• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Unsupervised Approach to Evaluate Sentence-Level Fluency: Do We Really Need Reference? [3.2528685897001455]
  This paper adapts an existing unsupervised technique for measuring text fluency without the need for any reference. Our approach leverages various word embeddings and trains language models using Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) architectures. To assess the performance of the models, we conduct a comparative analysis across 10 Indic languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-03T20:09:23Z)
• Towards Multiple References Era -- Addressing Data Leakage and Limited Reference Diversity in NLG Evaluation [55.92852268168816]
  N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations. We propose to utilize textitmultiple references to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T14:49:26Z)
• Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References [123.39034752499076]
  Div-Ref is a method to enhance evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We conduct experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:53:29Z)
• Language Model Augmented Relevance Score [2.8314622515446835]
  Language Model Augmented Relevance Score (MARS) is a new context-aware metric for NLG evaluation. MARS uses off-the-shelf language models, guided by reinforcement learning, to create augmented references that consider both the generation context and available human references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-19T03:59:23Z)
• To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translation [5.972205906525993]
  We investigate which metrics have the highest accuracy to make system-level quality rankings for pairs of systems. We show that the sole use of BLEU negatively affected the past development of improved models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-22T17:22:22Z)
• REAM$\sharp$: An Enhancement Approach to Reference-based Evaluation Metrics for Open-domain Dialog Generation [63.46331073232526]
  We present an enhancement approach to Reference-based EvAluation Metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. A prediction model is designed to estimate the reliability of the given reference set. We show how its predicted results can be helpful to augment the reference set, and thus improve the reliability of the metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-30T10:04:13Z)
• Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics [64.88815792555451]
  We show that current methods for judging metrics are highly sensitive to the translations used for assessment. We develop a method for thresholding performance improvement under an automatic metric against human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T09:12:53Z)
• 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)
• A Human Evaluation of AMR-to-English Generation Systems [13.10463139842285]
  We present the results of a new human evaluation which collects fluency and adequacy scores, as well as categorization of error types. We discuss the relative quality of these systems and how our results compare to those of automatic metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T21:41:30Z)
• BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocent [34.817010352734]
  We study different methods to collect references and compare their value in automated evaluation. Motivated by the finding that typical references exhibit poor diversity, concentrating around translationese language, we develop a paraphrasing task. Our method yields higher correlation with human judgment not only for the submissions of WMT 2019 English to German, but also for Back-translation and APE augmented MT output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-13T16:49:09Z)

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.