Enhancing Human Evaluation in Machine Translation with Comparative Judgment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17797v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 03:02:24 GMT
• Title: Enhancing Human Evaluation in Machine Translation with Comparative Judgment
• Authors: Yixiao Song, Parker Riley, Daniel Deutsch, Markus Freitag,
• Abstract summary: This study explores the integration of comparative judgment into human annotation for machine translation (MT)<n>It evaluates three annotation setups-point-wise Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), side-by-side (SxS) MQM, and its simplified version SxS relative ranking (RR)
• Score: 28.793446713389844
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Human evaluation is crucial for assessing rapidly evolving language models but is influenced by annotator proficiency and task design. This study explores the integration of comparative judgment into human annotation for machine translation (MT) and evaluates three annotation setups-point-wise Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), side-by-side (SxS) MQM, and its simplified version SxS relative ranking (RR). In MQM, annotators mark error spans with categories and severity levels. SxS MQM extends MQM to pairwise error annotation for two translations of the same input, while SxS RR focuses on selecting the better output without labeling errors. Key findings are: (1) the SxS settings achieve higher inter-annotator agreement than MQM; (2) SxS MQM enhances inter-translation error marking consistency compared to MQM by, on average, 38.5% for explicitly compared MT systems and 19.5% for others; (3) all annotation settings return stable system rankings, with SxS RR offering a more efficient alternative to (SxS) MQM; (4) the SxS settings highlight subtle errors overlooked in MQM without altering absolute system evaluations. To spur further research, we will release the triply annotated datasets comprising 377 ZhEn and 104 EnDe annotation examples.

Related papers

• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment.<n>We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, based on the idea of filtering out non-impactful errors.<n>Experiments show that our approach consistently improves both the reliability and quality of error spans against GEMBA-MQM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translation [48.080874541824436]
  We introduce Error Span. ESA, a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level. error severity span marking of MQM. ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T14:20:47Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Machine Translation Evaluation: Model Evaluation and Resource for Korean [7.843029855730508]
  We develop a 1200-sentence MQM evaluation benchmark for the language pair English-Korean. We find that reference-free setup outperforms its counterpart in the style dimension. Overall, RemBERT emerges as the most promising model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T12:02:38Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Mismatching-Aware Unsupervised Translation Quality Estimation For Low-Resource Languages [6.049660810617423]
  XLMRScore is a cross-lingual counterpart of BERTScore computed via the XLM-RoBERTa (XLMR) model. We evaluate the proposed method on four low-resource language pairs of the WMT21 QE shared task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-31T16:23:23Z)
• 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.