mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

DivEMT: Neural Machine Translation Post-Editing Effort Across Typologically Diverse Languages

arXiv 2205.12215 ↗First posted 24 May 2022cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce DivEMT, the first publicly available post-editing study of Neural Machine Translation (NMT) over a typologically diverse set of target languages. Using a strictly controlled setup, 18 professional translators were instructed to translate or post-edit the same set of English documents into Arabic, Dutch, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. During the process, their edits, keystrokes, editing times and pauses were recorded, enabling an in-depth, cross-lingual evaluation of NMT quality and post-editing effectiveness. Using this new dataset, we assess the impact of two state-of-the-art NMT systems, Google Translate and the multilingual mBART-50 model, on translation productivity. We find that post-editing is consistently faster than translation from scratch. However, the magnitude of productivity gains varies widely across systems and languages, highlighting major disparities in post-editing effectiveness for languages at different degrees of typological relatedness to English, even when controlling for system architecture and training data size. We publicly release the complete dataset including all collected behavioral data, to foster new research on the translation capabilities of NMT systems for typologically diverse languages.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2022.

Builds on

23 of 57 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
  3. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
  4. 2020Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,035
  5. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  6. 2020Beyond English-Centric Multilingual Machine Translationcited by 561
  7. 2021The FLORES-101 Evaluation Benchmark for Low-Resource and Multilingual Machine Translationcited by 560
  8. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  9. 2017What do Neural Machine Translation Models Learn about Morphology?cited by 166
  10. 2019Choosing Transfer Languages for Cross-Lingual Learningcited by 144
  11. 2018Are All Languages Equally Hard to Language-Model?cited by 53
  12. 2019What Kind of Language Is Hard to Language-Model?cited by 50
11 more
  1. 2020MLQE-PE: A Multilingual Quality Estimation and Post-Editing Datasetcited by 47
  2. 2021Continual Mixed-Language Pre-Training for Extremely Low-Resource Neural Machine Translationcited by 29
  3. 2020It's Easier to Translate out of English than into it: Measuring Neural Translation Difficulty by Cross-Mutual Informationcited by 26
  4. 2016Neural versus Phrase-Based Machine Translation Quality: a Case Studycited by 19
  5. 2022Consistent Human Evaluation of Machine Translation across Language Pairscited by 13
  6. 2021Neural Machine Translation Quality and Post-Editing Performancecited by 12
  7. 2021On the Difficulty of Translating Free-Order Case-Marking Languagescited by 8
  8. 2022What do complexity measures measure? Correlating and validating corpus-based measures of morphological complexitycited by 8
  9. 2019Post-editing Productivity with Neural Machine Translation: An Empirical Assessment of Speed and Quality in the Banking and Finance Domaincited by 7
  10. 2021How Suitable Are Subword Segmentation Strategies for Translating Non-Concatenative Morphology?cited by 7
  11. 2021Assessing Post-editing Effort in the English-Hindi Directioncited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

11 papers.