mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Testing Machine Translation via Referential Transparency

arXiv 2004.10361 ↗First posted 22 Apr 2020cs.CL cs.SEcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine translation software has seen rapid progress in recent years due to the advancement of deep neural networks. People routinely use machine translation software in their daily lives, such as ordering food in a foreign restaurant, receiving medical diagnosis and treatment from foreign doctors, and reading international political news online. However, due to the complexity and intractability of the underlying neural networks, modern machine translation software is still far from robust and can produce poor or incorrect translations; this can lead to misunderstanding, financial loss, threats to personal safety and health, and political conflicts. To address this problem, we introduce referentially transparent inputs (RTIs), a simple, widely applicable methodology for validating machine translation software. A referentially transparent input is a piece of text that should have similar translations when used in different contexts. Our practical implementation, Purity, detects when this property is broken by a translation. To evaluate RTI, we use Purity to test Google Translate and Bing Microsoft Translator with 200 unlabeled sentences, which detected 123 and 142 erroneous translations with high precision (79.3% and 78.3%). The translation errors are diverse, including examples of under-translation, over-translation, word/phrase mistranslation, incorrect modification, and unclear logic.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 8; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editingcited by 56
  2. 2023Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBenchcited by 54
  3. 2023BiasAsker: Measuring the Bias in Conversational AI Systemcited by 52
  4. 2022SALTED: A Framework for SAlient Long-Tail Translation Error Detectioncited by 23
  5. 2023MTTM: Metamorphic Testing for Textual Content Moderation Softwarecited by 20
  6. 2022LLMEffiChecker: Understanding and Testing Efficiency Degradation of Large Language Modelscited by 16
  7. 2022AEON: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of NLP Test Casescited by 15
  8. 2024New Job, New Gender? Measuring the Social Bias in Image Generation Modelscited by 15
  9. 2025Metamorphic Testing of Large Language Models for Natural Language Processingcited by 12
  10. 2021MDPFuzz: Testing Models Solving Markov Decision Processescited by 11
  11. 2023Validating Multimedia Content Moderation Software via Semantic Fusioncited by 5
  12. 2023Automated Testing and Improvement of Named Entity Recognition Systemscited by 3
7 more
  1. 2023An Image is Worth a Thousand Toxic Words: A Metamorphic Testing Framework for Content Moderation Softwarecited by 3
  2. 2024Machine Translation Testing via Syntactic Tree Pruningcited by 2
  3. 2021Energy-bounded Learning for Robust Models of Codecited by 1
  4. 2023Towards General Error Diagnosis via Behavioral Testing in Machine Translationcited by 1
  5. 2025Metamorphic Testing for Audio Content Moderation Softwarecited by 0
  6. 2026Is Textual Similarity Invariant under Machine Translation? Evidence Based on the Political Manifesto Corpuscited by 0
  7. 2026The Consistency Dilemma in LLMs: Generator-Evaluator Agreement and Vulnerability to Mistakescited by 0