Can QE-informed (Re)Translation lead to Error Correction?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The paper presents two approaches submitted to the WMT 2025 Automated Translation Quality Evaluation Systems Task 3 - Quality Estimation (QE)-informed Segment-level Error Correction. While jointly training QE systems with Automatic Post-Editing (APE) has shown improved performance for both tasks, APE systems are still known to overcorrect the output of Machine Translation (MT), leading to a degradation in performance. We investigate a simple training-free approach - QE-informed Retranslation, and compare it with another within the same training-free paradigm. Our winning approach selects the highest-quality translation from multiple candidates generated by different LLMs. The second approach, more akin to APE, instructs an LLM to replace error substrings as specified in the provided QE explanation(s). A conditional heuristic was employed to minimise the number of edits, with the aim of maximising the Gain-to-Edit ratio. The two proposed approaches achieved a Delta COMET score of 0.0201 and -0.0108, respectively, leading the first approach to achieve the winning position on the subtask leaderboard.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Nov 2025.
Builds on
5 of 18 references.
References · 5
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 207
- 2025Tower+: Bridging Generality and Translation Specialization in Multilingual LLMscited by 40
- 2025Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answeringcited by 10
- 2025Giving the Old a Fresh Spin: Quality Estimation-Assisted Constrained Decoding for Automatic Post-Editingcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.