Exploring the Correlation between Human and Machine Evaluation of Simultaneous Speech Translation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Assessing the performance of interpreting services is a complex task, given the nuanced nature of spoken language translation, the strategies that interpreters apply, and the diverse expectations of users. The complexity of this task become even more pronounced when automated evaluation methods are applied. This is particularly true because interpreted texts exhibit less linearity between the source and target languages due to the strategies employed by the interpreter. This study aims to assess the reliability of automatic metrics in evaluating simultaneous interpretations by analyzing their correlation with human evaluations. We focus on a particular feature of interpretation quality, namely translation accuracy or faithfulness. As a benchmark we use human assessments performed by language experts, and evaluate how well sentence embeddings and Large Language Models correlate with them. We quantify semantic similarity between the source and translated texts without relying on a reference translation. The results suggest GPT models, particularly GPT-3.5 with direct prompting, demonstrate the strongest correlation with human judgment in terms of semantic similarity between source and target texts, even when evaluating short textual segments. Additionally, the study reveals that the size of the context window has a notable impact on this correlation.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jun 2024.
Builds on
16 of 50 references.
References · 16
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
- 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
- 2017Word Translation Without Parallel Datacited by 480
- 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 416
- 2023How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 344
- 2018A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised cross-lingual mappings of word embeddingscited by 145
4 more
- 2017A Survey Of Cross-lingual Word Embedding Modelscited by 142
- 2023The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 95
- 2019SumQE: a BERT-based Summary Quality Estimation Modelcited by 17
- 2021Towards the evaluation of automatic simultaneous speech translation from a communicative perspectivecited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2024How "Real" is Your Real-Time Simultaneous Speech-to-Text Translation System?cited by 17
- 2026Bridging the Usability Gap: Lessons from Interpreting Studies for Machine Interpreting Designcited by 0
- 2026EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpretingcited by 0
- 2026Rubric-Aligned Disentangled Evaluation of Human Simultaneous Interpretingcited by 0
- 2026Rubric-Aligned Disentangled Evaluation of Human Simultaneous Interpreting10 Sep 2026
- 2026EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting8 Sep 2026
- 2026Bridging the Usability Gap: Lessons from Interpreting Studies for Machine Interpreting Design14 Jun 2026
- 2024How "Real" is Your Real-Time Simultaneous Speech-to-Text Translation System?24 Dec 2024