mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Lack of Fluency is Hurting Your Translation Model

arXiv 2205.11826 ↗First posted 24 May 2022cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many machine translation models are trained on bilingual corpus, which consist of aligned sentence pairs from two different languages with same semantic. However, there is a qualitative discrepancy between train and test set in bilingual corpus. While the most train sentences are created via automatic techniques such as crawling and sentence-alignment methods, the test sentences are annotated with the consideration of fluency by human. We suppose this discrepancy in training corpus will yield performance drop of translation model. In this work, we define textitfluency noise to determine which parts of train sentences cause them to seem unnatural. We show that textitfluency noise can be detected by simple gradient-based method with pre-trained classifier. By removing textitfluency noise in train sentences, our final model outperforms the baseline on WMT-14 DErightarrowEN and RUrightarrowEN. We also show the compatibility with back-translation augmentation, which has been commonly used to improve the fluency of the translation model. At last, the qualitative analysis of textitfluency noise provides the insight of what points we should focus on.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2022.

Builds on

26 of 38 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  4. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  5. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
  6. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
  7. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  8. 2020Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,035
  9. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  10. 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 856
  11. 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 788
  12. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
14 more
  1. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 200
  2. 2016Layer-wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layerscited by 199
  3. 2021The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translationcited by 161
  4. 2020Unsupervised Domain Clusters in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 160
  5. 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
  6. 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 110
  7. 2019Tagged Back-Translationcited by 77
  8. 2019Domain Robustness in Neural Machine Translationcited by 65
  9. 2021Neural Machine Translation with Monolingual Translation Memorycited by 61
  10. 2020Language Model Prior for Low-Resource Neural Machine Translationcited by 37
  11. 2019Translationese as a Language in "Multilingual" NMTcited by 36
  12. 2021Prevent the Language Model from being Overconfident in Neural Machine Translationcited by 34
  13. 2021On Explaining Your Explanations of BERT: An Empirical Study with Sequence Classificationcited by 21
  14. 2021Comparing Feature-Engineering and Feature-Learning Approaches for Multilingual Translationese Classificationcited by 13

Built on by

Not cited yet.