Towards Tailored Recovery of Lexical Diversity in Literary Machine Translation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine translations are found to be lexically poorer than human translations. The loss of lexical diversity through MT poses an issue in the automatic translation of literature, where it matters not only what is written, but also how it is written. Current methods for increasing lexical diversity in MT are rigid. Yet, as we demonstrate, the degree of lexical diversity can vary considerably across different novels. Thus, rather than aiming for the rigid increase of lexical diversity, we reframe the task as recovering what is lost in the machine translation process. We propose a novel approach that consists of reranking translation candidates with a classifier that distinguishes between original and translated text. We evaluate our approach on 31 English-to-Dutch book translations, and find that, for certain books, our approach retrieves lexical diversity scores that are close to human translation.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2024.
Builds on
20 of 48 references.
References · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,973
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
- 2019fairseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modelingcited by 1,486
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2016Diverse Beam Search: Decoding Diverse Solutions from Neural Sequence Modelscited by 299
- 2021SimCLS: A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Abstractive Summarizationcited by 131
- 2019BERTje: A Dutch BERT Modelcited by 109
- 2021Machine Translationese: Effects of Algorithmic Bias on Linguistic Complexity in Machine Translationcited by 70
- 2018Attaining the Unattainable? Reassessing Claims of Human Parity in Neural Machine Translationcited by 58
8 more
- 2019Lost in Translation: Loss and Decay of Linguistic Richness in Machine Translationcited by 45
- 2018A Comparison of Transformer and Recurrent Neural Networks on Multilingual Neural Machine Translationcited by 23
- 2021Comparing Feature-Engineering and Feature-Learning Approaches for Multilingual Translationese Classificationcited by 13
- 2016Unsupervised Identification of Translationesecited by 9
- 2022T5QL: Taming language models for SQL generationcited by 8
- 2020What's the Difference Between Professional Human and Machine Translation? A Blind Multi-language Study on Domain-specific MTcited by 5
- 2023Translating away Translationese without Parallel Datacited by 5
- 2022Towards Debiasing Translation Artifactscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2024Multi-perspective Alignment for Increasing Naturalness in Neural Machine Translationcited by 1
- 2026DataPrep-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs as Training Data Preparatorscited by 1
- 2025Can Peter Pan Survive MT? A Stylometric Study of LLMs, NMTs, and HTs in Children's Literature Translationcited by 0
- 2026On Temperature-Constrained Non-Deterministic Machine Translation: Potential and Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Metaphors in Literary Post-Editing: Opening Pandora's Box?cited by 0
- 2026Metaphors in Literary Post-Editing: Opening Pandora's Box?20 May 2026
- 2026DataPrep-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs as Training Data Preparators19 May 2026
- 2026On Temperature-Constrained Non-Deterministic Machine Translation: Potential and Evaluation20 Jan 2026
- 2025Can Peter Pan Survive MT? A Stylometric Study of LLMs, NMTs, and HTs in Children's Literature Translation27 Jun 2025
- 2024Multi-perspective Alignment for Increasing Naturalness in Neural Machine Translation11 Dec 2024