GPT-4 vs. Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Translation Quality Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03658v1
• Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 05:58:04 GMT
• Title: GPT-4 vs. Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Translation Quality Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels
• Authors: Jianhao Yan, Pingchuan Yan, Yulong Chen, Judy Li, Xianchao Zhu, Yue Zhang,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 18.835573312027265
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study comprehensively evaluates the translation quality of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, against human translators of varying expertise levels across multiple language pairs and domains. Through carefully designed annotation rounds, we find that GPT-4 performs comparably to junior translators in terms of total errors made but lags behind medium and senior translators. We also observe the imbalanced performance across different languages and domains, with GPT-4's translation capability gradually weakening from resource-rich to resource-poor directions. In addition, we qualitatively study the translation given by GPT-4 and human translators, and find that GPT-4 translator suffers from literal translations, but human translators sometimes overthink the background information. To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate LLMs against human translators and analyze the systematic differences between their outputs, providing valuable insights into the current state of LLM-based translation and its potential limitations.

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)
• (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)
• Large Language Models "Ad Referendum": How Good Are They at Machine Translation in the Legal Domain? [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T14:40:54Z)
• Lost in the Source Language: How Large Language Models Evaluate the Quality of Machine Translation [64.5862977630713]
  This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage source and reference data in machine translation evaluation task. We find that reference information significantly enhances the evaluation accuracy, while surprisingly, source information sometimes is counterproductive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T13:23:21Z)
• Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editing [23.65958978995292]
  GPT-4 is adept at translation post-editing, producing meaningful and trustworthy edits to translations. We improve upon state-of-the-art performance on WMT-22 English-Chinese, English-German, Chinese-English and German-English language pairs using GPT-4 based post-editing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T08:30:05Z)
• The Best of Both Worlds: Combining Human and Machine Translations for Multilingual Semantic Parsing with Active Learning [50.320178219081484]
  We propose an active learning approach that exploits the strengths of both human and machine translations. An ideal utterance selection can significantly reduce the error and bias in the translated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T05:57:47Z)
• 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)
• Large language models effectively leverage document-level context for literary translation, but critical errors persist [32.54546652197316]
  Large language models (LLMs) are competitive with the state of the art on a wide range of sentence-level translation datasets. We show through a rigorous human evaluation that asking the Gpt-3.5 (text-davinci-003) LLM to translate an entire literary paragraph results in higher-quality translations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T17:27:45Z)
• ParroT: Translating during Chat using Large Language Models tuned with Human Translation and Feedback [90.20262941911027]
  ParroT is a framework to enhance and regulate the translation abilities during chat. Specifically, ParroT reformulates translation data into the instruction-following style. We propose three instruction types for finetuning ParroT models, including translation instruction, contrastive instruction, and error-guided instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-05T13:12:00Z)
• A Bayesian approach to translators' reliability assessment [0.0]
  We consider the Translation Quality Assessment process as a complex process, considering it from the physics of complex systems point of view. We build two Bayesian models that parameterise the features involved in the TQA process, namely the translation difficulty, the characteristics of the translators involved in producing the translation and assessing its quality. We show that reviewers reliability cannot be taken for granted even if they are expert translators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T14:29:45Z)
• A Set of Recommendations for Assessing Human-Machine Parity in Language Translation [87.72302201375847]
  We reassess Hassan et al.'s investigation into Chinese to English news translation. We show that the professional human translations contained significantly fewer errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-03T17:49:56Z)

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.