Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07583v2
• Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:22:54 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answering
• Authors: Patrick Fernandes, Sweta Agrawal, Emmanouil Zaranis, André F. T. Martins, Graham Neubig,
• Abstract summary: We introduce TREQA (Translation Evaluation via Question-Answering), a framework that extrinsically evaluates translation quality.<n>We show that TREQA is competitive with and, in some cases, outperforms state-of-the-art neural and LLM-based metrics in ranking alternative paragraph-level translations.
• Score: 68.3400058037817
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite the steady progress in machine translation evaluation, existing automatic metrics struggle to capture how well meaning is preserved beyond sentence boundaries. We posit that reliance on a single intrinsic quality score, trained to mimic human judgments, might be insufficient for evaluating translations of long, complex passages, and a more ``pragmatic'' approach that assesses how accurately key information is conveyed by a translation in context is needed. We introduce TREQA (Translation Evaluation via Question-Answering), a framework that extrinsically evaluates translation quality by assessing how accurately candidate translations answer reading comprehension questions that target key information in the original source or reference texts. In challenging domains that require long-range understanding, such as literary texts, we show that TREQA is competitive with and, in some cases, outperforms state-of-the-art neural and LLM-based metrics in ranking alternative paragraph-level translations, despite never being explicitly optimized to correlate with human judgments. Furthermore, the generated questions and answers offer interpretability: empirical analysis shows that they effectively target translation errors identified by experts in evaluated datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/deep-spin/treqa

Related papers

• A comparison of translation performance between DeepL and Supertext [3.858812369171884]
  This study compares two commercial machine translation systems -- DeepL and Supertext.<n>We evaluate translation quality across four language directions with professional translators assessing segments with full document-level context.<n>While segment-level assessments indicate no strong preference between the systems in most cases, document-level analysis reveals a preference for Supertext in three out of four language directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T18:53:42Z)
• Is Context Helpful for Chat Translation Evaluation? [23.440392979857247]
  We conduct a meta-evaluation of existing sentence-level automatic metrics to assess the quality of machine-translated chats. We find that reference-free metrics lag behind reference-based ones, especially when evaluating translation quality in out-of-English settings. We propose a new evaluation metric, Context-MQM, that utilizes bilingual context with a large language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T07:49:50Z)
• Improving Long Context Document-Level Machine Translation [51.359400776242786]
  Document-level context for neural machine translation (NMT) is crucial to improve translation consistency and cohesion. Many works have been published on the topic of document-level NMT, but most restrict the system to just local context. We propose a constrained attention variant that focuses the attention on the most relevant parts of the sequence, while simultaneously reducing the memory consumption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T13:28:48Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore: Evaluation of Metrics Performance in Assessing Critical Translation Errors in Sentiment-oriented Text [1.4213973379473654]
  Machine Translation (MT) of the online content is commonly used to process posts written in several languages. In this paper, we assess the ability of automatic quality metrics to detect critical machine translation errors. We conclude that there is a need for fine-tuning of automatic metrics to make them more robust in detecting sentiment critical errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T07:51:17Z)

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.