mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Multi-Dimensional Machine Translation Evaluation: Model Evaluation and Resource for Korean

arXiv 2403.12666 ↗First posted 19 Mar 2024cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Almost all frameworks for the manual or automatic evaluation of machine translation characterize the quality of an MT output with a single number. An exception is the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework which offers a fine-grained ontology of quality dimensions for scoring (such as style, fluency, accuracy, and terminology). Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of MQM annotation but there are, to our knowledge, no computational models that predict MQM scores for novel texts, due to a lack of resources. In this paper, we address these shortcomings by (a) providing a 1200-sentence MQM evaluation benchmark for the language pair English-Korean and (b) reframing MT evaluation as the multi-task problem of simultaneously predicting several MQM scores using SOTA language models, both in a reference-based MT evaluation setup and a reference-free quality estimation (QE) setup. We find that reference-free setup outperforms its counterpart in the style dimension while reference-based models retain an edge regarding accuracy. Overall, RemBERT emerges as the most promising model. Through our evaluation, we offer an insight into the translation quality in a more fine-grained, interpretable manner.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2024.

Builds on

24 of 58 references.

References · 24

  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. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  5. 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,907
  6. 2020mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformercited by 1,813
  7. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
  8. 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
  9. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  10. 2020Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,028
  11. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  12. 2020Making Monolingual Sentence Embeddings Multilingual using Knowledge Distillationcited by 591
12 more
  1. 2020Beyond English-Centric Multilingual Machine Translationcited by 559
  2. 2021A Survey of Transformerscited by 399
  3. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
  4. 2020Unsupervised Quality Estimation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 210
  5. 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 205
  6. 2020Rethinking embedding coupling in pre-trained language modelscited by 103
  7. 2021Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Paperscited by 70
  8. 2020TransQuest: Translation Quality Estimation with Cross-lingual Transformerscited by 59
  9. 2019OpenKiwi: An Open Source Framework for Quality Estimationcited by 49
  10. 2024Simpson's Paradox and the Accuracy-Fluency Tradeoff in Translationcited by 8
  11. 2018Quantitative Fine-Grained Human Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems: a Case Study on English to Croatiancited by 7
  12. 2019Fine-grained evaluation of Quality Estimation for Machine translation based on a linguistically-motivated Test Suitecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.