Quality-Aware Translation Models: Efficient Generation and Quality Estimation in a Single Model
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) decoding is the most widely used decoding strategy for neural machine translation (NMT) models. The underlying assumption is that model probability correlates well with human judgment, with better translations getting assigned a higher score by the model. However, research has shown that this assumption does not always hold, and generation quality can be improved by decoding to optimize a utility function backed by a metric or quality-estimation signal, as is done by Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) or quality-aware decoding. The main disadvantage of these approaches is that they require an additional model to calculate the utility function during decoding, significantly increasing the computational cost. In this paper, we propose to make the NMT models themselves quality-aware by training them to estimate the quality of their own output. Using this approach for MBR decoding we can drastically reduce the size of the candidate list, resulting in a speed-up of two-orders of magnitude. When applying our method to MAP decoding we obtain quality gains similar or even superior to quality reranking approaches, but with the efficiency of single pass decoding.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2023.
Builds on
26 of 54 references.
References · 26
- 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,974
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2016Google's Multilingual Neural Machine Translation System: Enabling Zero-Shot Translationcited by 467
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
- 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 155
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 137
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
- 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 121
- 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 109
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
14 more
- 2019Getting Gender Right in Neural Machine Translationcited by 98
- 2019Tagged Back-Translationcited by 76
- 2021Sampling-Based Approximations to Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 63
- 2020TransQuest: Translation Quality Estimation with Cross-lingual Transformerscited by 59
- 2023Epsilon Sampling Rocks: Investigating Sampling Strategies for Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Machine Translationcited by 57
- 2020Unbabel's Participation in the WMT20 Metrics Shared Taskcited by 56
- 2021Understanding the Properties of Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding in Neural Machine Translationcited by 56
- 2019OpenKiwi: An Open Source Framework for Quality Estimationcited by 49
- 2022Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 49
- 2020Energy-Based Reranking: Improving Neural Machine Translation Using Energy-Based Modelscited by 44
- 2022Identifying Weaknesses in Machine Translation Metrics Through Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding: A Case Study for COMETcited by 41
- 2016Domain Control for Neural Machine Translationcited by 36
- 2019Controlling Text Complexity in Neural Machine Translationcited by 32
- 2023BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Trainingcited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024Regularized Best-of-N Sampling with Minimum Bayes Risk Objective for Language Model Alignmentcited by 24
- 2024Efficient Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding using Low-Rank Matrix Completion Algorithmscited by 13
- 2024Introducing the NewsPaLM MBR and QE Dataset: LLM-Generated High-Quality Parallel Data Outperforms Traditional Web-Crawled Datacited by 10
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMETcited by 10
- 2024Cross-lingual Human-Preference Alignment for Neural Machine Translation with Direct Quality Optimizationcited by 5
- 2025Automatic Input Rewriting Improves Translation with Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2026Who Watches the Watchmen? Humans Disagree With Translation Metrics on Unseen Domainscited by 2
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decodingcited by 1
- 2025Optimal Corpus Aware Training for Neural Machine Translationcited by 0
- 2026Who Watches the Watchmen? Humans Disagree With Translation Metrics on Unseen Domains19 Apr 2026
- 2025Optimal Corpus Aware Training for Neural Machine Translation7 Aug 2025
- 2025Automatic Input Rewriting Improves Translation with Large Language Models23 Feb 2025
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decoding12 Feb 2025
- 2024Cross-lingual Human-Preference Alignment for Neural Machine Translation with Direct Quality Optimization26 Sep 2024
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMET27 Aug 2024
- 2024Introducing the NewsPaLM MBR and QE Dataset: LLM-Generated High-Quality Parallel Data Outperforms Traditional Web-Crawled Data13 Aug 2024
- 2024Efficient Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding using Low-Rank Matrix Completion Algorithms5 Jun 2024
- 2024Regularized Best-of-N Sampling with Minimum Bayes Risk Objective for Language Model Alignment1 Apr 2024