Breeding Machine Translations: Evolutionary approach to survive and thrive in the world of automated evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19330v1
• Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:00:25 GMT
• Title: Breeding Machine Translations: Evolutionary approach to survive and thrive in the world of automated evaluation
• Authors: Josef Jon and Ond\v{r}ej Bojar
• Abstract summary: We propose a genetic algorithm (GA) based method for modifying n-best lists produced by a machine translation (MT) system. Our method offers an innovative approach to improving MT quality and identifying weaknesses in evaluation metrics.
• Score: 1.90365714903665
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We propose a genetic algorithm (GA) based method for modifying n-best lists produced by a machine translation (MT) system. Our method offers an innovative approach to improving MT quality and identifying weaknesses in evaluation metrics. Using common GA operations (mutation and crossover) on a list of hypotheses in combination with a fitness function (an arbitrary MT metric), we obtain novel and diverse outputs with high metric scores. With a combination of multiple MT metrics as the fitness function, the proposed method leads to an increase in translation quality as measured by other held-out automatic metrics. With a single metric (including popular ones such as COMET) as the fitness function, we find blind spots and flaws in the metric. This allows for an automated search for adversarial examples in an arbitrary metric, without prior assumptions on the form of such example. As a demonstration of the method, we create datasets of adversarial examples and use them to show that reference-free COMET is substantially less robust than the reference-based version.

Related papers

• We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP [34.73017509294468]
  In Natural Language Processing (NLP) model generalizability is generally measured with standard metrics such as Accuracy, F-Measure, or AUC-ROC. The diversity of metrics, and the arbitrariness of their application suggest that there is no agreement within NLP on a single best metric to use. We demonstrate that a random-guess normalised Informedness metric is a parsimonious baseline for task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T11:40:48Z)
• A Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Practical and Automatic Domain Adaptation [15.728090002818963]
  Unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) methods facilitate the transfer of models to target domains without labels. In this paper, we aim to find an evaluation metric capable of assessing the quality of a transferred model without access to target validation labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T05:01:05Z)
• BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Training [64.37683359609308]
  In this study, we analyze various mainstream and cutting-edge automatic metrics from the perspective of their guidance for training machine translation systems. We find that certain metrics exhibit robustness defects, such as the presence of universal adversarial translations in BLEURT and BARTScore. In-depth analysis suggests two main causes of these robustness deficits: distribution biases in the training datasets, and the tendency of the metric paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:59:30Z)
• Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations [22.563596069176047]
  We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T05:00:59Z)
• 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)
• SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation [48.5999587529085]
  In this paper, we introduce a new metric called SMART to mitigate such limitations. We treat sentences as basic units of matching instead of tokens, and use a sentence matching function to soft-match candidate and reference sentences. Our results show that system-level correlations of our proposed metric with a model-based matching function outperforms all competing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T17:58:05Z)
• Bidimensional Leaderboards: Generate and Evaluate Language Hand in Hand [117.62186420147563]
  We propose a generalization of leaderboards, bidimensional leaderboards (Billboards) Unlike conventional unidimensional leaderboards that sort submitted systems by predetermined metrics, a Billboard accepts both generators and evaluation metrics as competing entries. We demonstrate that a linear ensemble of a few diverse metrics sometimes substantially outperforms existing metrics in isolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-08T06:34:58Z)
• Meta-Generating Deep Attentive Metric for Few-shot Classification [53.07108067253006]
  We present a novel deep metric meta-generation method to generate a specific metric for a new few-shot learning task. In this study, we structure the metric using a three-layer deep attentive network that is flexible enough to produce a discriminative metric for each task. We gain surprisingly obvious performance improvement over state-of-the-art competitors, especially in the challenging cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-03T02:07:43Z)
• 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)
• 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.