Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metrics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automatic machine translation metrics typically rely on human translations to determine the quality of system translations. Common wisdom in the field dictates that the human references should be of very high quality. However, there are no cost-benefit analyses that could be used to guide practitioners who plan to collect references for machine translation evaluation. We find that higher-quality references lead to better metric correlations with humans at the segment-level. Having up to 7 references per segment and taking their average (or maximum) helps all metrics. Interestingly, the references from vendors of different qualities can be mixed together and improve metric success. Higher quality references, however, cost more to create and we frame this as an optimization problem: given a specific budget, what references should be collected to maximize metric success. These findings can be used by evaluators of shared tasks when references need to be created under a certain budget.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jan 2024.
Builds on
16 of 53 references.
References · 16
- 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
- 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 161
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
- 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 109
- 2022Embarrassingly Easy Document-Level MT Metrics: How to Convert Any Pretrained Metric Into a Document-Level Metriccited by 56
- 2017A Challenge Set Approach to Evaluating Machine Translationcited by 37
- 2017Dynamic Data Selection for Neural Machine Translationcited by 33
- 2020Simulated Multiple Reference Training Improves Low-Resource Machine Translationcited by 22
4 more
- 2018Multi-Reference Training with Pseudo-References for Neural Translation and Text Generationcited by 14
- 2021Neural Machine Translation Quality and Post-Editing Performancecited by 12
- 2022Onception: Active Learning with Expert Advice for Real World Machine Translationcited by 5
- 2023Evaluating Optimal Reference Translationscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 3.
7 papers.
- 2024Multilingual Large Language Model: A Survey of Resources, Taxonomy and Frontierscited by 49
- 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 20
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMETcited by 10
- 2025Hearing to Translate: The Effectiveness of Speech Modality Integration into LLMscited by 6
- 2024Beyond Human-Only: Evaluating Human-Machine Collaboration for Collecting High-Quality Translation Datacited by 4
- 2025Contextual Metric Meta-Evaluation by Measuring Local Metric Accuracycited by 2
- 2025COMET-poly: Machine Translation Metric Grounded in Other Candidatescited by 2
- 2025Hearing to Translate: The Effectiveness of Speech Modality Integration into LLMs18 Dec 2025
- 2025COMET-poly: Machine Translation Metric Grounded in Other Candidates25 Aug 2025
- 2025Contextual Metric Meta-Evaluation by Measuring Local Metric Accuracy25 Mar 2025
- 2024Beyond Human-Only: Evaluating Human-Machine Collaboration for Collecting High-Quality Translation Data14 Oct 2024
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMET27 Aug 2024
- 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translation18 Jun 2024
- 2024Multilingual Large Language Model: A Survey of Resources, Taxonomy and Frontiers7 Apr 2024