HOPE: A Task-Oriented and Human-Centric Evaluation Framework Using Professional Post-Editing Towards More Effective MT Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13833v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 18:47:43 GMT
• Title: HOPE: A Task-Oriented and Human-Centric Evaluation Framework Using Professional Post-Editing Towards More Effective MT Evaluation
• Authors: Serge Gladkoff, Lifeng Han
• Abstract summary: In this work, we introduce HOPE, a task-oriented and human-centric evaluation framework for machine translation output. It contains only a limited number of commonly occurring error types, and use a scoring model with geometric progression of error penalty points (EPPs) reflecting error severity level to each translation unit. The approach has several key advantages, such as ability to measure and compare less than perfect MT output from different systems, ability to indicate human perception of quality, immediate estimation of the labor effort required to bring MT output to premium quality, low-cost and faster application, as well as higher IRR.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Traditional automatic evaluation metrics for machine translation have been widely criticized by linguists due to their low accuracy, lack of transparency, focus on language mechanics rather than semantics, and low agreement with human quality evaluation. Human evaluations in the form of MQM-like scorecards have always been carried out in real industry setting by both clients and translation service providers (TSPs). However, traditional human translation quality evaluations are costly to perform and go into great linguistic detail, raise issues as to inter-rater reliability (IRR) and are not designed to measure quality of worse than premium quality translations. In this work, we introduce HOPE, a task-oriented and human-centric evaluation framework for machine translation output based on professional post-editing annotations. It contains only a limited number of commonly occurring error types, and use a scoring model with geometric progression of error penalty points (EPPs) reflecting error severity level to each translation unit. The initial experimental work carried out on English-Russian language pair MT outputs on marketing content type of text from highly technical domain reveals that our evaluation framework is quite effective in reflecting the MT output quality regarding both overall system-level performance and segment-level transparency, and it increases the IRR for error type interpretation. The approach has several key advantages, such as ability to measure and compare less than perfect MT output from different systems, ability to indicate human perception of quality, immediate estimation of the labor effort required to bring MT output to premium quality, low-cost and faster application, as well as higher IRR. Our experimental data is available at \url{https://github.com/lHan87/HOPE}.

Related papers

• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment. We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, to enhance the quality of error annotations predicted by LLM evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translation [48.080874541824436]
  We introduce Error Span. ESA, a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level. error severity span marking of MQM. ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T14:20:47Z)
• Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metrics [78.75776477562087]
  It is unclear if automatic metrics are reliable at distinguishing good translations from bad translations at the sentence level. We evaluate the segment-level performance of the most widely used MT metrics (chrF, COMET, BERTScore, etc.) on three downstream cross-lingual tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that all metrics exhibit negligible correlation with the extrinsic evaluation of the downstream outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T14:39:58Z)
• Competency-Aware Neural Machine Translation: Can Machine Translation Know its Own Translation Quality? [61.866103154161884]
  Neural machine translation (NMT) is often criticized for failures that happen without awareness. We propose a novel competency-aware NMT by extending conventional NMT with a self-estimator. We show that the proposed method delivers outstanding performance on quality estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T02:39:41Z)
• Rethink about the Word-level Quality Estimation for Machine Translation from Human Judgement [57.72846454929923]
  We create a benchmark dataset, emphHJQE, where the expert translators directly annotate poorly translated words. We propose two tag correcting strategies, namely tag refinement strategy and tree-based annotation strategy, to make the TER-based artificial QE corpus closer to emphHJQE. The results show our proposed dataset is more consistent with human judgement and also confirm the effectiveness of the proposed tag correcting strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T02:37:12Z)
• Measuring Uncertainty in Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE) [62.997667081978825]
  This work carries out motivated research to correctly estimate the confidence intervals citeBrown_etal2001Interval depending on the sample size of the translated text. The methodology we applied for this work is from Bernoulli Statistical Distribution Modelling (BSDM) and Monte Carlo Sampling Analysis (MCSA)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T12:09:08Z)
• BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore: Evaluation of Metrics Performance in Assessing Critical Translation Errors in Sentiment-oriented Text [1.4213973379473654]
  Machine Translation (MT) of the online content is commonly used to process posts written in several languages. In this paper, we assess the ability of automatic quality metrics to detect critical machine translation errors. We conclude that there is a need for fine-tuning of automatic metrics to make them more robust in detecting sentiment critical errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T07:51:17Z)
• Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translation [19.116396693370422]
  We propose an evaluation methodology grounded in explicit error analysis, based on the Multidimensional Quality Metrics framework. We carry out the largest MQM research study to date, scoring the outputs of top systems from the WMT 2020 shared task in two language pairs. We analyze the resulting data extensively, finding among other results a substantially different ranking of evaluated systems from the one established by the WMT crowd workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-29T16:42:09Z)
• 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)

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.