MT-Ranker: Reference-free machine translation evaluation by inter-system ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17099v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:30:03 GMT
• Title: MT-Ranker: Reference-free machine translation evaluation by inter-system ranking
• Authors: Ibraheem Muhammad Moosa, Rui Zhang, Wenpeng Yin
• Abstract summary: We show that MT-Ranker, trained without any human annotations, achieves state-of-the-art results on the WMT Shared Metrics Task benchmarks DARR20, MQM20, and MQM21. MT-Ranker marks state-of-the-art against reference-free as well as reference-based baselines.
• Score: 14.188948302661933
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Traditionally, Machine Translation (MT) Evaluation has been treated as a regression problem -- producing an absolute translation-quality score. This approach has two limitations: i) the scores lack interpretability, and human annotators struggle with giving consistent scores; ii) most scoring methods are based on (reference, translation) pairs, limiting their applicability in real-world scenarios where references are absent. In practice, we often care about whether a new MT system is better or worse than some competitors. In addition, reference-free MT evaluation is increasingly practical and necessary. Unfortunately, these two practical considerations have yet to be jointly explored. In this work, we formulate the reference-free MT evaluation into a pairwise ranking problem. Given the source sentence and a pair of translations, our system predicts which translation is better. In addition to proposing this new formulation, we further show that this new paradigm can demonstrate superior correlation with human judgments by merely using indirect supervision from natural language inference and weak supervision from our synthetic data. In the context of reference-free evaluation, MT-Ranker, trained without any human annotations, achieves state-of-the-art results on the WMT Shared Metrics Task benchmarks DARR20, MQM20, and MQM21. On a more challenging benchmark, ACES, which contains fine-grained evaluation criteria such as addition, omission, and mistranslation errors, MT-Ranker marks state-of-the-art against reference-free as well as reference-based baselines.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models [57.80514758695275]
  Using large language models (LLMs) for assessing the quality of machine translation (MT) achieves state-of-the-art performance at the system level. We propose a new prompting method called textbftextttError Analysis Prompting (EAPrompt) This technique emulates the commonly accepted human evaluation framework - Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and textitproduces explainable and reliable MT evaluations at both the system and segment level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T05:05:03Z)
• 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)
• HOPE: A Task-Oriented and Human-Centric Evaluation Framework Using Professional Post-Editing Towards More Effective MT Evaluation [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-27T18:47:43Z)
• When Does Translation Require Context? A Data-driven, Multilingual Exploration [71.43817945875433]
  proper handling of discourse significantly contributes to the quality of machine translation (MT) Recent works in context-aware MT attempt to target a small set of discourse phenomena during evaluation. We develop the Multilingual Discourse-Aware benchmark, a series of taggers that identify and evaluate model performance on discourse phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-15T17:29:30Z)
• Difficulty-Aware Machine Translation Evaluation [19.973201669851626]
  We propose a novel difficulty-aware machine translation evaluation metric. A translation that fails to be predicted by most MT systems will be treated as a difficult one and assigned a large weight in the final score function. Our proposed method performs well even when all the MT systems are very competitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-30T02:45:36Z)
• Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Papers [21.802259336894068]
  This paper presents the first large-scale meta-evaluation of machine translation (MT) We annotated MT evaluations conducted in 769 research papers published from 2010 to 2020.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T09:30:17Z)
• 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)
• 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.