mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On User Interfaces for Large-Scale Document-Level Human Evaluation of Machine Translation Outputs

arXiv 2104.10408 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2021cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent studies emphasize the need of document context in human evaluation of machine translations, but little research has been done on the impact of user interfaces on annotator productivity and the reliability of assessments. In this work, we compare human assessment data from the last two WMT evaluation campaigns collected via two different methods for document-level evaluation. Our analysis shows that a document-centric approach to evaluation where the annotator is presented with the entire document context on a screen leads to higher quality segment and document level assessments. It improves the correlation between segment and document scores and increases inter-annotator agreement for document scores but is considerably more time consuming for annotators.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2021.

Builds on

7 of 23 references.

References · 7

  1. 2018Has Machine Translation Achieved Human Parity? A Case for Document-level Evaluationcited by 88
  2. 2018RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generationcited by 67
  3. 2018Attaining the Unattainable? Reassessing Claims of Human Parity in Neural Machine Translationcited by 58
  4. 2019Translationese in Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 38
  5. 2020A Set of Recommendations for Assessing Human-Machine Parity in Language Translationcited by 34
  6. 2018Efficient Online Scalar Annotation with Bounded Supportcited by 27
  7. 2020Reassessing Claims of Human Parity and Super-Human Performance in Machine Translation at WMT 2019cited by 20

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

3 papers.