mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Machine Translation and Post-Editing: Comparative Evaluation of Different MT Systems and Post-Editor Groups in Specialised Translation

arXiv 2606.23002 ↗First posted 22 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This article aims to evaluate the quality of machine translation (MT) and post-editing (PE) in the context of specialised translation from English into French. Three MT systems (DeepL, eTranslation and Systran) were compared, and two groups of post-editors -linguists/translators and NLP experts -were asked to perform post-editing. Translation assessment is based on error annotation using an error typology adapted to MT and PE evaluation. The results reveal significant differences between the three MT systems and the two groups of post-editors, particularly in terms of terminological accuracy and fluency. This study highlights the importance of domain knowledge in specialised translation, as well as the limitations and variable performance of MT systems in language for specific purposes (LSP).

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

Builds on

5 of 32 references.

References · 5

  1. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  2. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 143
  3. 2023The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 95
  4. 2023Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Modelscited by 87
  5. 2024MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluatorscited by 22

Built on by

Not cited yet.