mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can QE-informed (Re)Translation lead to Error Correction?

arXiv 2511.13884 ↗First posted 17 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  2. 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 207
  3. 2025Tower+: Bridging Generality and Translation Specialization in Multilingual LLMscited by 40
  4. 2025Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answeringcited by 10
  5. 2025Giving the Old a Fresh Spin: Quality Estimation-Assisted Constrained Decoding for Automatic Post-Editingcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.