@inproceedings{scarton-etal-2019-estimating,
title = "Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of {MT} quality",
author = "Scarton, Scarton and
Forcada, Mikel L. and
Espl{\`a}-Gomis, Miquel and
Specia, Lucia",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation",
month = nov # " 2-3",
year = "2019",
address = "Hong Kong",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2019.iwslt-1.23",
abstract = "Devising metrics to assess translation quality has always been at the core of machine translation (MT) research. Traditional automatic reference-based metrics, such as BLEU, have shown correlations with human judgements of adequacy and fluency and have been paramount for the advancement of MT system development. Crowd-sourcing has popularised and enabled the scalability of metrics based on human judgments, such as subjective direct assessments (DA) of adequacy, that are believed to be more reliable than reference-based automatic metrics. Finally, task-based measurements, such as post-editing time, are expected to provide a more de- tailed evaluation of the usefulness of translations for a specific task. Therefore, while DA averages adequacy judgements to obtain an appraisal of (perceived) quality independently of the task, and reference-based automatic metrics try to objectively estimate quality also in a task-independent way, task-based metrics are measurements obtained either during or after performing a specific task. In this paper we argue that, although expensive, task-based measurements are the most reliable when estimating MT quality in a specific task; in our case, this task is post-editing. To that end, we report experiments on a dataset with newly-collected post-editing indicators and show their usefulness when estimating post-editing effort. Our results show that task-based metrics comparing machine-translated and post-edited versions are the best at tracking post-editing effort, as expected. These metrics are followed by DA, and then by metrics comparing the machine-translated version and independent references. We suggest that MT practitioners should be aware of these differences and acknowledge their implications when decid- ing how to evaluate MT for post-editing purposes.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="scarton-etal-2019-estimating">
<titleInfo>
<title>Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of MT quality</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Scarton</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Scarton</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Mikel</namePart>
<namePart type="given">L</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Forcada</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Miquel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Esplà-Gomis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lucia</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Specia</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2019-nov" 2-3"</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation</title>
</titleInfo>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Hong Kong</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Devising metrics to assess translation quality has always been at the core of machine translation (MT) research. Traditional automatic reference-based metrics, such as BLEU, have shown correlations with human judgements of adequacy and fluency and have been paramount for the advancement of MT system development. Crowd-sourcing has popularised and enabled the scalability of metrics based on human judgments, such as subjective direct assessments (DA) of adequacy, that are believed to be more reliable than reference-based automatic metrics. Finally, task-based measurements, such as post-editing time, are expected to provide a more de- tailed evaluation of the usefulness of translations for a specific task. Therefore, while DA averages adequacy judgements to obtain an appraisal of (perceived) quality independently of the task, and reference-based automatic metrics try to objectively estimate quality also in a task-independent way, task-based metrics are measurements obtained either during or after performing a specific task. In this paper we argue that, although expensive, task-based measurements are the most reliable when estimating MT quality in a specific task; in our case, this task is post-editing. To that end, we report experiments on a dataset with newly-collected post-editing indicators and show their usefulness when estimating post-editing effort. Our results show that task-based metrics comparing machine-translated and post-edited versions are the best at tracking post-editing effort, as expected. These metrics are followed by DA, and then by metrics comparing the machine-translated version and independent references. We suggest that MT practitioners should be aware of these differences and acknowledge their implications when decid- ing how to evaluate MT for post-editing purposes.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">scarton-etal-2019-estimating</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2019.iwslt-1.23</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2019-nov" 2-3"</date>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of MT quality
%A Scarton, Scarton
%A Forcada, Mikel L.
%A Esplà-Gomis, Miquel
%A Specia, Lucia
%S Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation
%D 2019
%8 nov" 2 3"
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Hong Kong
%F scarton-etal-2019-estimating
%X Devising metrics to assess translation quality has always been at the core of machine translation (MT) research. Traditional automatic reference-based metrics, such as BLEU, have shown correlations with human judgements of adequacy and fluency and have been paramount for the advancement of MT system development. Crowd-sourcing has popularised and enabled the scalability of metrics based on human judgments, such as subjective direct assessments (DA) of adequacy, that are believed to be more reliable than reference-based automatic metrics. Finally, task-based measurements, such as post-editing time, are expected to provide a more de- tailed evaluation of the usefulness of translations for a specific task. Therefore, while DA averages adequacy judgements to obtain an appraisal of (perceived) quality independently of the task, and reference-based automatic metrics try to objectively estimate quality also in a task-independent way, task-based metrics are measurements obtained either during or after performing a specific task. In this paper we argue that, although expensive, task-based measurements are the most reliable when estimating MT quality in a specific task; in our case, this task is post-editing. To that end, we report experiments on a dataset with newly-collected post-editing indicators and show their usefulness when estimating post-editing effort. Our results show that task-based metrics comparing machine-translated and post-edited versions are the best at tracking post-editing effort, as expected. These metrics are followed by DA, and then by metrics comparing the machine-translated version and independent references. We suggest that MT practitioners should be aware of these differences and acknowledge their implications when decid- ing how to evaluate MT for post-editing purposes.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2019.iwslt-1.23
Markdown (Informal)
[Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of MT quality](https://aclanthology.org/2019.iwslt-1.23) (Scarton et al., IWSLT 2019)
ACL