Convergences and Divergences between Automatic Assessment and Human Evaluation: Insights from Comparing ChatGPT-Generated Translation and Neural Machine Translation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05176v2
• Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:25:51 GMT
• Title: Convergences and Divergences between Automatic Assessment and Human Evaluation: Insights from Comparing ChatGPT-Generated Translation and Neural Machine Translation
• Authors: Zhaokun Jiang, Ziyin Zhang,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the convergences and divergences between automated metrics and human evaluation. To perform automatic assessment, four automated metrics are employed, while human evaluation incorporates the DQF-MQM error typology and six rubrics. Results underscore the indispensable role of human judgment in evaluating the performance of advanced translation tools.
• Score: 0.6650227510403052
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models have demonstrated parallel and even superior translation performance compared to neural machine translation (NMT) systems. However, existing comparative studies between them mainly rely on automated metrics, raising questions into the feasibility of these metrics and their alignment with human judgment. The present study investigates the convergences and divergences between automated metrics and human evaluation in assessing the quality of machine translation from ChatGPT and three NMT systems. To perform automatic assessment, four automated metrics are employed, while human evaluation incorporates the DQF-MQM error typology and six rubrics. Notably, automatic assessment and human evaluation converge in measuring formal fidelity (e.g., error rates), but diverge when evaluating semantic and pragmatic fidelity, with automated metrics failing to capture the improvement of ChatGPT's translation brought by prompt engineering. These results underscore the indispensable role of human judgment in evaluating the performance of advanced translation tools at the current stage.

Related papers

• The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluation [93.01964988474755]
  AutoMQM is a prompting technique which asks large language models to identify and categorize errors in translations. We study the impact of labeled data through in-context learning and finetuning. We then evaluate AutoMQM with PaLM-2 models, and we find that it improves performance compared to just prompting for scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T17:17:21Z)
• 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)
• Correction of Errors in Preference Ratings from Automated Metrics for Text Generation [4.661309379738428]
  We propose a statistical model of Text Generation evaluation that accounts for the error-proneness of automated metrics. We show that our model enables an efficient combination of human and automated ratings to remedy the error-proneness of the automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T17:09:29Z)
• 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)
• The Glass Ceiling of Automatic Evaluation in Natural Language Generation [60.59732704936083]
  We take a step back and analyze recent progress by comparing the body of existing automatic metrics and human metrics. Our extensive statistical analysis reveals surprising findings: automatic metrics -- old and new -- are much more similar to each other than to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T01:13:46Z)
• An Overview on Machine Translation Evaluation [6.85316573653194]
  Machine translation (MT) has become one of the important tasks of AI and development. The evaluation task of MT is not only to evaluate the quality of machine translation, but also to give timely feedback to machine translation researchers. This report mainly includes a brief history of machine translation evaluation (MTE), the classification of research methods on MTE, and the the cutting-edge progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-22T16:58:28Z)
• Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metrics of Translation Quality [16.838064121696274]
  This work applies Minimum Bayes Risk decoding to optimize diverse automated metrics of translation quality. Experiments show that the combination of a neural translation model with a neural reference-based metric, BLEURT, results in significant improvement in automatic and human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-17T20:48:02Z)
• 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)
• 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.