mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Competency-Aware Neural Machine Translation: Can Machine Translation Know its Own Translation Quality?

arXiv 2211.13865 ↗First posted 25 Nov 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Neural machine translation (NMT) is often criticized for failures that happen without awareness. The lack of competency awareness makes NMT untrustworthy. This is in sharp contrast to human translators who give feedback or conduct further investigations whenever they are in doubt about predictions. To fill this gap, we propose a novel competency-aware NMT by extending conventional NMT with a self-estimator, offering abilities to translate a source sentence and estimate its competency. The self-estimator encodes the information of the decoding procedure and then examines whether it can reconstruct the original semantics of the source sentence. Experimental results on four translation tasks demonstrate that the proposed method not only carries out translation tasks intact but also delivers outstanding performance on quality estimation. Without depending on any reference or annotated data typically required by state-of-the-art metric and quality estimation methods, our model yields an even higher correlation with human quality judgments than a variety of aforementioned methods, such as BLEURT, COMET, and BERTScore. Quantitative and qualitative analyses show better robustness of competency awareness in our model.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2022.

Builds on

29 of 50 references.

References · 29

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  5. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  6. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  7. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
  8. 2019fairseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modelingcited by 1,486
  9. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  10. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  11. 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 334
  12. 2020Unsupervised Quality Estimation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 210
17 more
  1. 2016Dual Learning for Machine Translationcited by 146
  2. 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 109
  3. 2018On the Impact of Various Types of Noise on Neural Machine Translationcited by 76
  4. 2018A Study of Reinforcement Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 74
  5. 2019Domain Robustness in Neural Machine Translationcited by 64
  6. 2020On the Inference Calibration of Neural Machine Translationcited by 61
  7. 2020UNION: An Unreferenced Metric for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generationcited by 60
  8. 2019OpenKiwi: An Open Source Framework for Quality Estimationcited by 49
  9. 2019Simple and Effective Noisy Channel Modeling for Neural Machine Translationcited by 37
  10. 2016Semi-Supervised Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 36
  11. 2019Improving Back-Translation with Uncertainty-based Confidence Estimationcited by 34
  12. 2016Neural Machine Translation with Reconstructioncited by 28
  13. 2022UniTE: Unified Translation Evaluationcited by 28
  14. 2020Self-Paced Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 27
  15. 2020Revisiting Round-Trip Translation for Quality Estimationcited by 24
  16. 2018"Bilingual Expert" Can Find Translation Errorscited by 10
  17. 2022RoBLEURT Submission for the WMT2021 Metrics Taskcited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2.

2 papers.