Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics

The Journal of Charles University

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1804-0462
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Questing for Quality Estimation A User Study

Carla Parra Escartín / Hanna Béchara / Constantin Orăsan
Published Online: 2017-06-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0032

Abstract

Post-Editing of Machine Translation (MT) has become a reality in professional translation workflows. In order to optimize the management of projects that use post-editing and avoid underpayments and mistrust from professional translators, effective tools to assess the quality of Machine Translation (MT) systems need to be put in place. One field of study that could address this problem is Machine Translation Quality Estimation (MTQE), which aims to determine the quality of MT without an existing reference. Accurate and reliable MTQE can help project managers and translators alike, as it would allow estimating more precisely the cost of post-editing projects in terms of time and adequate fares by discarding those segments that are not worth post-editing (PE) and have to be translated from scratch.

In this paper, we report on the results of an impact study which engages professional translators in PE tasks using MTQE. We measured translators’ productivity in different scenarios: translating from scratch, post-editing without using MTQE, and post-editing using MTQE. Our results show that QE information, when accurate, improves post-editing efficiency.

Bibliography

  • Aziz, Wilker, Sheila Castilho, and Lucia Specia. PET: a Tool for Post-editing and Assessing Machine Translation. In LREC, pages 3982–3987, 2012.Google Scholar

  • Béchara, Hanna, Carla Parra Escartín, Constantin Orăsan, and Lucia Specia. Semantic Textual Similarity in Quality Estimation. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2):256, 2016.Google Scholar

  • Blatz, John, Erin Fitzgerald, George Foster, Simona Gandrabur, Cyril Goutte, Alex Kulesza, Alberto Sanchis, and Nicola Ueffing. Confidence estimation for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (CoLing-2004), pages 315–321, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Bojar, Ondřej, Christian Buck, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Philipp Koehn, Johannes Leveling, Christof Monz, Pavel Pecina, Matt Post, Herve Saint-Amand, Radu Soricut, Lucia Specia, and Aleš Tamchyna. Findings of the 2014 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 12–58, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 2014. Association for Computational Lingustics.Google Scholar

  • Bojar, Ondřej, Rajan Chatterjee, Christian Federmann, Barry Haddow, Chris Hokamp, Matthias Huck, Varvara Logacheva, and Pavel Pecina, editors. Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2015.Google Scholar

  • Bojar, Ondřej, Rajen Chatterjee, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Antonio Jimeno Yepes, Philipp Koehn, Varvara Logacheva, Christof Monz, Matteo Negri, Aurelie Neveol, Mariana Neves, Martin Popel, Matt Post, Raphael Rubino, Carolina Scarton, Lucia Specia, Marco Turchi, Karin Verspoor, and Marcos Zampieri. Findings of the 2016 Conference on Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation, pages 131–198, Berlin, Germany, August 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Moorkens, Joss and Sharon O’Brien. Human Issues in Translation Technology: The IATIS Yearbook, chapter Assessing User Interface Needs of Post-Editors of Machine Translation, pages 109–130. Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2017.Google Scholar

  • Moorkens, Joss and Andy Way. Comparing Translator Acceptability of TM and SMT outputs. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2):141–151, 2016.Google Scholar

  • Moorkens, Joss, Sharon O’Brien, Igor A.L. da Silva, Norma B. de Lima Fonseca, and Fabio Alves. Correlations of perceived post-editing effort with measurements of actual effort. Machine Translation, 29(3–4):267–284, 2015.Google Scholar

  • Papineni, Kishore, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 311–318, 2002.Google Scholar

  • Parra Escartín, Carla and Manuel Arcedillo. Machine translation evaluation made fuzzier: A study on post-editing productivity and evaluation metrics in commercial settings. In Proceedings of the MT Summit XV, Miami (Florida), October 2015a. International Association for Machine Translation (IAMT).Google Scholar

  • Parra Escartín, Carla and Manuel Arcedillo. Living on the edge: productivity gain thresholds in machine translation evaluation metrics. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice, pages 46–56, Miami, Florida (USA), November 2015b. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).Google Scholar

  • Snover, Matthew, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and Makhoul John. A Study of Translation Edit Rate with Targeted Human Annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA), pages 223–231, 2006.Google Scholar

  • Specia, Lucia, Najeh Hajlaoui, Catalina Hallett, and Wilker Aziz. Predicting Machine Translation Adequacy. In Proceedings of the 13th Machine Translation Summit, pages 513–520, Xiamen, China, September 2011.Google Scholar

  • Specia, Lucia, Gustavo Paetzold, and Carolina Scarton. Multi-level Translation Quality Prediction with QuEst++. In Proceedings of ACL-IJCNLP 2015 System Demonstrations, pages 115–120, Beijing, China, July 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics and The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar

  • Turchi, Marco, Matteo Negri, and Marcello Federico. MT Quality Estimation for Computerassisted Translation: Does it Really Help? In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Short Papers), pages 530–535, Beijing, China, July 26–31 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-06

Published in Print: 2017-06-01


Citation Information: The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 343–354, ISSN (Online) 1804-0462, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0032.

Export Citation

© 2017 Carla Parra Escartín et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in