Don't Rank, Combine! Combining Machine Translation Hypotheses Using Quality Estimation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural machine translation systems estimate probabilities of target sentences given source sentences, yet these estimates may not align with human preferences. This work introduces QE-fusion, a method that synthesizes translations using a quality estimation metric (QE), which correlates better with human judgments. QE-fusion leverages a pool of candidates sampled from a model, combining spans from different candidates using a QE metric such as CometKiwi. We compare QE-fusion against beam search and recent reranking techniques, such as Minimum Bayes Risk decoding or QE-reranking. Our method consistently improves translation quality in terms of COMET and BLEURT scores when applied to large language models (LLMs) used for translation (PolyLM, XGLM, Llama2, Mistral, ALMA, and Tower) and to multilingual translation models (NLLB), over five language pairs. Notably, QE-fusion exhibits larger improvements for LLMs due to their ability to generate diverse outputs. We demonstrate that our approach generates novel translations in over half of the cases and consistently outperforms other methods across varying numbers of candidates (5-200). Furthermore, we empirically establish that QE-fusion scales linearly with the number of candidates in the pool.
Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2024.
Builds on
44 of 70 references.
References · 44
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2023LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusioncited by 564
- 2023Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modelingcited by 500
32 more
- 2023How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 348
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
- 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 335
- 2016Diverse Beam Search: Decoding Diverse Solutions from Neural Sequence Modelscited by 301
- 2021Few-shot Learning with Multilingual Language Modelscited by 278
- 2022Generating Sequences by Learning to Self-Correctcited by 277
- 2019Facebook FAIR's WMT19 News Translation Task Submissioncited by 179
- 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
- 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
- 2021NeuroLogic A*esque Decoding: Constrained Text Generation with Lookahead Heuristicscited by 154
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 138
- 2023Hallucinations in Large Multilingual Translation Modelscited by 129
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
- 2022Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothingcited by 123
- 2020Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation in Many Languages via Zero-Shot Paraphrasingcited by 115
- 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
- 2023The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translationcited by 91
- 2021Sampling-Based Approximations to Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 65
- 2020TransQuest: Translation Quality Estimation with Cross-lingual Transformerscited by 59
- 2023Investigating the Translation Performance of a Large Multilingual Language Model: the Case of BLOOMcited by 59
- 2023Epsilon Sampling Rocks: Investigating Sampling Strategies for Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Machine Translationcited by 58
- 2022Embarrassingly Easy Document-Level MT Metrics: How to Convert Any Pretrained Metric Into a Document-Level Metriccited by 56
- 2021Machine Translation Decoding beyond Beam Searchcited by 55
- 2019Context-Aware Monolingual Repair for Neural Machine Translationcited by 41
- 2019Simple and Effective Noisy Channel Modeling for Neural Machine Translationcited by 37
- 2023Faster Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Confidence-based Pruningcited by 34
- 2021PPL-MCTS: Constrained Textual Generation Through Discriminator-Guided MCTS Decodingcited by 33
- 2023MBR and QE Finetuning: Training-time Distillation of the Best and Most Expensive Decoding Methodscited by 33
- 2023Small Language Models Improve Giants by Rewriting Their Outputscited by 18
- 2020Language Models not just for Pre-training: Fast Online Neural Noisy Channel Modelingcited by 6
- 2023On the Depth between Beam Search and Exhaustive Search for Text Generationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 7; 2025: 6.
13 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2024Multilingual Large Language Model: A Survey of Resources, Taxonomy and Frontierscited by 51
- 2024QUEST: Quality-Aware Metropolis-Hastings Sampling for Machine Translationcited by 16
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMETcited by 10
- 2024Watching the Watchers: Exposing Gender Disparities in Machine Translation Quality Estimationcited by 10
- 2025CoT-based Synthesizer: Enhancing LLM Performance through Answer Synthesiscited by 7
- 2024Chasing COMET: Leveraging Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Self-Improving Machine Translationcited by 6
- 2025Two Intermediate Translations Are Better Than One: Fine-tuning LLMs for Document-level Translation Refinementcited by 5
- 2024Reranking Laws for Language Generation: A Communication-Theoretic Perspectivecited by 4
- 2024A Bayesian Optimization Approach to Machine Translation Rerankingcited by 2
- 2025Early-Exit and Instant Confidence Translation Quality Estimationcited by 2
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decodingcited by 1
- 2025Quality Estimation Reranking for Document-Level Translationcited by 1
1 more
- 2025Quality Estimation Reranking for Document-Level Translation10 Oct 2025
- 2025Unlocking Latent Discourse Translation in LLMs Through Quality-Aware Decoding8 Oct 2025
- 2025Two Intermediate Translations Are Better Than One: Fine-tuning LLMs for Document-level Translation Refinement8 Apr 2025
- 2025Early-Exit and Instant Confidence Translation Quality Estimation20 Feb 2025
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decoding12 Feb 2025
- 2025CoT-based Synthesizer: Enhancing LLM Performance through Answer Synthesis3 Jan 2025
- 2024A Bayesian Optimization Approach to Machine Translation Reranking14 Nov 2024
- 2024Watching the Watchers: Exposing Gender Disparities in Machine Translation Quality Estimation14 Oct 2024
- 2024Reranking Laws for Language Generation: A Communication-Theoretic Perspective11 Sep 2024
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMET27 Aug 2024
- 2024QUEST: Quality-Aware Metropolis-Hastings Sampling for Machine Translation28 May 2024
- 2024Chasing COMET: Leveraging Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Self-Improving Machine Translation20 May 2024
1 more
- 2024QUEST: Quality-Aware Metropolis-Hastings Sampling for Machine Translationcited by 16
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMETcited by 10
- 2024Watching the Watchers: Exposing Gender Disparities in Machine Translation Quality Estimationcited by 10
- 2024Chasing COMET: Leveraging Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Self-Improving Machine Translationcited by 6
- 2025Two Intermediate Translations Are Better Than One: Fine-tuning LLMs for Document-level Translation Refinementcited by 5
- 2024Reranking Laws for Language Generation: A Communication-Theoretic Perspectivecited by 4
- 2024A Bayesian Optimization Approach to Machine Translation Rerankingcited by 2
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decodingcited by 1
- 2025Quality Estimation Reranking for Document-Level Translationcited by 1
- 2025Unlocking Latent Discourse Translation in LLMs Through Quality-Aware Decodingcited by 0
- 2025Quality Estimation Reranking for Document-Level Translation10 Oct 2025
- 2025Unlocking Latent Discourse Translation in LLMs Through Quality-Aware Decoding8 Oct 2025
- 2025Two Intermediate Translations Are Better Than One: Fine-tuning LLMs for Document-level Translation Refinement8 Apr 2025
- 2025Quality-Aware Decoding: Unifying Quality Estimation and Decoding12 Feb 2025
- 2024A Bayesian Optimization Approach to Machine Translation Reranking14 Nov 2024
- 2024Watching the Watchers: Exposing Gender Disparities in Machine Translation Quality Estimation14 Oct 2024
- 2024Reranking Laws for Language Generation: A Communication-Theoretic Perspective11 Sep 2024
- 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMET27 Aug 2024
- 2024QUEST: Quality-Aware Metropolis-Hastings Sampling for Machine Translation28 May 2024
- 2024Chasing COMET: Leveraging Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Self-Improving Machine Translation20 May 2024