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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23002 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23002/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.09025/) (2020)
- [GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13988/) (2023)
- [The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07286/) (2023)
- [Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13809/) (2023)
- [MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14335/) (2024)

## 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).