Large Language Models "Ad Referendum": How Good Are They at Machine Translation in the Legal Domain?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07681v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:40:54 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models "Ad Referendum": How Good Are They at Machine Translation in the Legal Domain?
• Authors: Vicent Briva-Iglesias, Joao Lucas Cavalheiro Camargo, Gokhan Dogru
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates the machine translation (MT) quality of two state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against a tradition-al neural machine translation (NMT) system across four language pairs in the legal domain. It combines automatic evaluation met-rics (AEMs) and human evaluation (HE) by professional transla-tors to assess translation ranking, fluency and adequacy.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study evaluates the machine translation (MT) quality of two state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against a tradition-al neural machine translation (NMT) system across four language pairs in the legal domain. It combines automatic evaluation met-rics (AEMs) and human evaluation (HE) by professional transla-tors to assess translation ranking, fluency and adequacy. The re-sults indicate that while Google Translate generally outperforms LLMs in AEMs, human evaluators rate LLMs, especially GPT-4, comparably or slightly better in terms of producing contextually adequate and fluent translations. This discrepancy suggests LLMs' potential in handling specialized legal terminology and context, highlighting the importance of human evaluation methods in assessing MT quality. The study underscores the evolving capabil-ities of LLMs in specialized domains and calls for reevaluation of traditional AEMs to better capture the nuances of LLM-generated translations.

Related papers

• How Good Are LLMs for Literary Translation, Really? Literary Translation Evaluation with Humans and LLMs [23.247387152595067]
  LITEVAL-CORPUS is a parallel corpus comprising multiple verified human translations and outputs from 9 machine translation systems. We find that Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), as the de facto standard in non-literary human MT evaluation, is inadequate for literary translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T12:48:03Z)
• What do Large Language Models Need for Machine Translation Evaluation? [12.42394213466485]
  Large language models (LLMs) can achieve results comparable to fine-tuned multilingual pre-trained language models. This paper explores what translation information, such as the source, reference, translation errors and annotation guidelines, is needed for LLMs to evaluate machine translation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T09:50:45Z)
• GPT-4 vs. Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Translation Quality Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels [18.835573312027265]
  This study comprehensively evaluates the translation quality of Large Language Models (LLMs) against human translators. We find that GPT-4 performs comparably to junior translators in terms of total errors made but lags behind medium and senior translators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T05:58:04Z)
• TasTe: Teaching Large Language Models to Translate through Self-Reflection [82.83958470745381]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance in various natural language processing tasks. We propose the TasTe framework, which stands for translating through self-reflection. The evaluation results in four language directions on the WMT22 benchmark reveal the effectiveness of our approach compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T17:21:21Z)
• (Perhaps) Beyond Human Translation: Harnessing Multi-Agent Collaboration for Translating Ultra-Long Literary Texts [52.18246881218829]
  We introduce a novel multi-agent framework based on large language models (LLMs) for literary translation, implemented as a company called TransAgents. To evaluate the effectiveness of our system, we propose two innovative evaluation strategies: Monolingual Human Preference (MHP) and Bilingual LLM Preference (BLP)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T05:55:08Z)
• TEaR: Improving LLM-based Machine Translation with Systematic Self-Refinement [26.26493253161022]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results in Machine Translation (MT) We introduce a systematic LLM-based self-refinement translation framework, named textbfTEaR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T07:58:12Z)
• Towards Effective Disambiguation for Machine Translation with Large Language Models [65.80775710657672]
  We study the capabilities of large language models to translate "ambiguous sentences" Experiments show that our methods can match or outperform state-of-the-art systems such as DeepL and NLLB in four out of five language directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T22:22:52Z)
• Multilingual Machine Translation with Large Language Models: Empirical Results and Analysis [103.89753784762445]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in handling multilingual machine translation (MMT) This paper systematically investigates the advantages and challenges of LLMs for MMT. We thoroughly evaluate eight popular LLMs, including ChatGPT and GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T15:51:30Z)
• Document-Level Machine Translation with Large Language Models [91.03359121149595]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce coherent, cohesive, relevant, and fluent answers for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of LLMs' ability on discourse modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-05T03:49:06Z)
• 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)

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.