mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translation

arXiv 2406.12419 ↗First posted 18 Jun 2024cs.CLcited by 20

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Annually, research teams spend large amounts of money to evaluate the quality of machine translation systems (WMT, inter alia). This is expensive because it requires a lot of expert human labor. In the recently adopted annotation protocol, Error Span Annotation (ESA), annotators mark erroneous parts of the translation and then assign a final score. A lot of the annotator time is spent on scanning the translation for possible errors. In our work, we help the annotators by pre-filling the error annotations with recall-oriented automatic quality estimation. With this AI assistance, we obtain annotations at the same quality level while cutting down the time per span annotation by half (71s/error span rightarrow 31s/error span). The biggest advantage of the ESAAI protocol is an accurate priming of annotators (pre-filled error spans) before they assign the final score. This alleviates a potential automation bias, which we confirm to be low. In our experiments, we find that the annotation budget can be further reduced by almost 25% with filtering of examples that the AI deems to be likely to be correct.

Key facts. Cited by 20 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.

Builds on

15 of 30 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  2. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
  3. 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 260
  4. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 143
  5. 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 109
  6. 2023Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Taskscited by 102
  7. 2018RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generationcited by 67
  8. 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
  9. 2021Role of Human-AI Interaction in Selective Predictioncited by 33
  10. 2021The Eval4NLP Shared Task on Explainable Quality Estimation: Overview and Resultscited by 27
  11. 2023A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertaintycited by 23
  12. 2024Fine-Tuned Machine Translation Metrics Struggle in Unseen Domainscited by 21
3 more
  1. 2024Finding Replicable Human Evaluations via Stable Ranking Probabilitycited by 13
  2. 2021Neural Machine Translation Quality and Post-Editing Performancecited by 12
  3. 2024Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metricscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 11; 2026: 8.

20 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?cited by 23
  2. 2026Pearmut: Human Evaluation of Translation Made Trivialcited by 11
  3. 2024Pitfalls and Outlooks in Using COMETcited by 10
  4. 2025Multilingual Performance Biases of Large Language Models in Educationcited by 9
  5. 2025LLMs as Span Annotators: A Comparative Study of LLMs and Humanscited by 7
  6. 2025QE4PE: Word-level Quality Estimation for Human Post-Editingcited by 6
  7. 2025Estimating Machine Translation Difficultycited by 6
  8. 2025Unsupervised Word-level Quality Estimation for Machine Translation Through the Lens of Annotators (Dis)agreementcited by 4
  9. 2025Specification-Aware Machine Translation and Evaluation for Purpose Alignmentcited by 4
  10. 2025Early-Exit and Instant Confidence Translation Quality Estimationcited by 2
  11. 2025COMET-poly: Machine Translation Metric Grounded in Other Candidatescited by 2
  12. 2025MQM Re-Annotation: A Technique for Collaborative Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 2
8 more
  1. 2026PEAR: Pairwise Evaluation for Automatic Relative Scoring in Machine Translationcited by 1
  2. 2026Creativity Bias: How Machine Evaluation Struggles with Creativity in Literary Translationscited by 1
  3. 2026Beyond Static Dialogues: Benchmarking Realistic, Heterogeneous, and Evolving Long-Term Memorycited by 1
  4. 2026Contrastive ESA: Human Evaluation of Multiple Translations at Oncecited by 1
  5. 2025Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Error Span Detection in Reference-Free Automatic Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 0
  6. 2026Large Language Models as Annotators for Machine Translation Quality Estimationcited by 0
  7. 2026Automatic Labelling of Speech Translation Errorscited by 0
  8. 2026Large Language Models for Machine Translation Quality Annotation: Humans and Models Are Both Challengedcited by 0