Neural Machine Translation Quality and Post-Editing Performance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We test the natural expectation that using MT in professional translation saves human processing time. The last such study was carried out by Sanchez-Torron and Koehn (2016) with phrase-based MT, artificially reducing the translation quality. In contrast, we focus on neural MT (NMT) of high quality, which has become the state-of-the-art approach since then and also got adopted by most translation companies. Through an experimental study involving over 30 professional translators for English -> Czech translation, we examine the relationship between NMT performance and post-editing time and quality. Across all models, we found that better MT systems indeed lead to fewer changes in the sentences in this industry setting. The relation between system quality and post-editing time is however not straightforward and, contrary to the results on phrase-based MT, BLEU is definitely not a stable predictor of the time or final output quality.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2021.
Builds on
3 of 24 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2023Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editingcited by 56
- 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 20
- 2021Measuring Uncertainty in Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE)cited by 16
- 2022Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metricscited by 14
- 2022DivEMT: Neural Machine Translation Post-Editing Effort Across Typologically Diverse Languagescited by 11
- 2021WeTS: A Benchmark for Translation Suggestioncited by 8
- 2024Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metricscited by 7
- 2025QE4PE: Word-level Quality Estimation for Human Post-Editingcited by 6
- 2024Beyond Human-Only: Evaluating Human-Machine Collaboration for Collecting High-Quality Translation Datacited by 4
- 2025Extending CREAMT: Leveraging Large Language Models for Literary Translation Post-Editingcited by 3
- 2022Findings of the WMT 2022 Shared Task on Translation Suggestioncited by 0
- 2026Hybrid Neural-LLM Pipeline for Morphological Glossing in Endangered Language Documentation: A Case Study of Jungar Tuvancited by 0
- 2026Hybrid Neural-LLM Pipeline for Morphological Glossing in Endangered Language Documentation: A Case Study of Jungar Tuvan1 Mar 2026
- 2025Extending CREAMT: Leveraging Large Language Models for Literary Translation Post-Editing3 Apr 2025
- 2025QE4PE: Word-level Quality Estimation for Human Post-Editing4 Mar 2025
- 2024Beyond Human-Only: Evaluating Human-Machine Collaboration for Collecting High-Quality Translation Data14 Oct 2024
- 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translation18 Jun 2024
- 2024Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metrics2 Jan 2024
- 2023Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editing24 May 2023
- 2022Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metrics20 Dec 2022
- 2022Findings of the WMT 2022 Shared Task on Translation Suggestion30 Nov 2022
- 2022DivEMT: Neural Machine Translation Post-Editing Effort Across Typologically Diverse Languages24 May 2022
- 2021Measuring Uncertainty in Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE)15 Nov 2021
- 2021WeTS: A Benchmark for Translation Suggestion11 Oct 2021