Can Automatic Metrics Assess High-Quality Translations?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18348v2
• Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:04:20 GMT
• Title: Can Automatic Metrics Assess High-Quality Translations?
• Authors: Sweta Agrawal, António Farinhas, Ricardo Rei, André F. T. Martins,
• Abstract summary: We show that current metrics are insensitive to nuanced differences in translation quality. This effect is most pronounced when the quality is high and the variance among alternatives is low. Using the MQM framework as the gold standard, we systematically stress-test the ability of current metrics to identify translations with no errors as marked by humans.
• Score: 28.407966066693334
• License:
• Abstract: Automatic metrics for evaluating translation quality are typically validated by measuring how well they correlate with human assessments. However, correlation methods tend to capture only the ability of metrics to differentiate between good and bad source-translation pairs, overlooking their reliability in distinguishing alternative translations for the same source. In this paper, we confirm that this is indeed the case by showing that current metrics are insensitive to nuanced differences in translation quality. This effect is most pronounced when the quality is high and the variance among alternatives is low. Given this finding, we shift towards detecting high-quality correct translations, an important problem in practical decision-making scenarios where a binary check of correctness is prioritized over a nuanced evaluation of quality. Using the MQM framework as the gold standard, we systematically stress-test the ability of current metrics to identify translations with no errors as marked by humans. Our findings reveal that current metrics often over or underestimate translation quality, indicating significant room for improvement in automatic evaluation methods.

Related papers

• Evaluating Optimal Reference Translations [4.956416618428049]
  We propose a methodology for creating more reliable document-level human reference translations. We evaluate the obtained document-level optimal reference translations in comparison with "standard" ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T13:50:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Answer Verification Methods for Question Answering-Based Summarization Evaluation Metrics [74.28810048824519]
  Question answering-based summarization evaluation metrics must automatically determine whether the QA model's prediction is correct or not. We benchmark the lexical answer verification methods which have been used by current QA-based metrics as well as two more sophisticated text comparison methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T15:43:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Pushing the Right Buttons: Adversarial Evaluation of Quality Estimation [25.325624543852086]
  We propose a general methodology for adversarial testing of Quality Estimation for Machine Translation (MT) systems. We show that despite a high correlation with human judgements achieved by the recent SOTA, certain types of meaning errors are still problematic for QE to detect. Second, we show that on average, the ability of a given model to discriminate between meaning-preserving and meaning-altering perturbations is predictive of its overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-22T17:32:18Z)
• 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.