The session will provide an overview of some of the new Machine Translation metrics available on the market, analyze if and how these new metrics correlate at a segment level to the results of Adequacy and Fluency Human Assessments, and how they compare against TER scores and Levenshtein Distance – two of our currently preferred metrics – as well as against each of the other. The information in this session will help to get a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and make informed decisions when it comes to forecasting MT production.

While definitions of full and light post-editing have been around for a while, and error typologies like DQF and MQM gained in prominence since the beginning of last decade, for a long time customers tended to refuse to be flexible as for their final quality requirements, irrespective of the text type, purpose, target audience etc. We are now finally seeing some change in this space, with a renewed interest in different machine translation (MT) and post-editing (PE) service levels. While existing definitions of light and full post-editing are useful as general guidelines, they typically remain too abstract and inflexible both for translation buyers and linguists. Besides, they are inconsistent and overlap across the literature and different Language Service Providers (LSPs). In this paper, we comment on existing industry standards and share our experience on several challenges, as well as ways to steer customer conversations and provide clear instructions to post-editors.