mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Audio-Based Crowd-Sourced Evaluation of Machine Translation Quality

arXiv 2509.14023 ↗First posted 17 Sep 2025cs.CL cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine Translation (MT) has achieved remarkable performance, with growing interest in speech translation and multimodal approaches. However, despite these advancements, MT quality assessment remains largely text centric, typically relying on human experts who read and compare texts. Since many real-world MT applications (e.g Google Translate Voice Mode, iFLYTEK Translator) involve translation being spoken rather printed or read, a more natural way to assess translation quality would be through speech as opposed text-only evaluations. This study compares text-only and audio-based evaluations of 10 MT systems from the WMT General MT Shared Task, using crowd-sourced judgments collected via Amazon Mechanical Turk. We additionally, performed statistical significance testing and self-replication experiments to test reliability and consistency of audio-based approach. Crowd-sourced assessments based on audio yield rankings largely consistent with text only evaluations but, in some cases, identify significant differences between translation systems. We attribute this to speech richer, more natural modality and propose incorporating speech-based assessments into future MT evaluation frameworks.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2025.

Builds on

5 of 25 references.

References · 5

  1. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  2. 2018Has Machine Translation Achieved Human Parity? A Case for Document-level Evaluationcited by 88
  3. 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
  4. 2018Attaining the Unattainable? Reassessing Claims of Human Parity in Neural Machine Translationcited by 58
  5. 2021Assessing Evaluation Metrics for Speech-to-Speech Translationcited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.