Automatic machine translation metrics typically rely on human translations to determine the quality of system translations. Common wisdom in the field dictates that the human references should be of very high quality. However, there are no cost-benefit analyses that could be used to guide practitioners who plan to collect references for machine translation evaluation. We find that higher-quality references lead to better metric correlations with humans at the segment-level. Having up to 7 references per segment and taking their average (or maximum) helps all metrics. Interestingly, the references from vendors of different qualities can be mixed together and improve metric success. Higher quality references, however, cost more to create and we frame this as an optimization problem: given a specific budget, what references should be collected to maximize metric success. These findings can be used by evaluators of shared tasks when references need to be created under a certain budget.
Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metrics
Higher-quality human references improve metric correlations for machine translation evaluation, but the balance between quality and cost should be considered to maximize metric success within a budget.
- Year
- 2024
- Venue
- arXiv 2024
- Authors
- 2
- Hosting
- Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2401.01283v5ARXIV-DEFAULT
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar