Tom Kocmi, Eleftherios Avramidis, Rachel Bawden et al. · eth-zurich, microsoft-research
This is the preliminary ranking of WMT24 General MT systems based on automatic metrics. The official ranking will be a human evaluation, which is superior to the automatic ranking and supersedes it. The purpose of this report is not to interpret any findings but only provide preliminary results to the participants of the General MT task that may be useful during the writing of the system submission.
Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer
Large language models (LLMs) are competitive with the state of the art on a wide range of sentence-level translation datasets. However, their ability to translate paragraphs and documents remains unexplored because evaluation in these settings is costly and difficult. We show through a rigorous human evaluation that asking the Gpt-3.5 (text-davinci-003) LLM to translate an entire literary paragraph (e.g., from a novel) at once results in higher-quality translations than standard sentence-by-sentence translation across 18 linguistically-diverse language pairs (e.g., translating into and out of Japanese, Polish, and English). Our evaluation, which took approximately 350 hours of effort for annotation and analysis, is conducted by hiring translators fluent in both the source and target language and asking them to provide both span-level error annotations as well as preference judgments of which system's translations are better. We observe that discourse-level LLM translators commit fewer mistranslations, grammar errors, and stylistic inconsistencies than sentence-level approaches. With that said, critical errors still abound, including occasional content omissions, and a human translator's intervention remains necessary to ensure that the author's voice remains intact. We publicly release our dataset and error annotations to spur future research on evaluation of document-level literary translation.
Marine Carpuat, Omri Asscher, Kalika Bali et al.
Machine Translation (MT) tools are widely used today, often in contexts where professional translators are not present. Despite progress in MT technology, a gap persists between system development and real-world usage, particularly for non-expert users who may struggle to assess translation reliability. This paper advocates for a human-centered approach to MT, emphasizing the alignment of system design with diverse communicative goals and contexts of use. We survey the literature in Translation Studies and Human-Computer Interaction to recontextualize MT evaluation and design to address the diverse real-world scenarios in which MT is used today.
Tom Kocmi, Eleftherios Avramidis, Rachel Bawden et al. · eth-zurich, microsoft-research
We present the preliminary rankings of machine translation (MT) systems submitted to the WMT25 General Machine Translation Shared Task, as determined by automatic evaluation metrics. Because these rankings are derived from automatic evaluation, they may exhibit a bias toward systems that employ re-ranking techniques, such as Quality Estimation or Minimum Bayes Risk decoding. The official WMT25 ranking will be based on human evaluation, which is more reliable and will supersede these results. The official WMT25 ranking will be based on human evaluation, which is more reliable and will supersede these results. The purpose of releasing these findings now is to assist task participants with their system description papers; not to provide final findings.
Tom Kocmi, Vilém Zouhar, Eleftherios Avramidis et al.
High-quality Machine Translation (MT) evaluation relies heavily on human judgments. Comprehensive error classification methods, such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are expensive as they are time-consuming and can only be done by experts, whose availability may be limited especially for low-resource languages. On the other hand, just assigning overall scores, like Direct Assessment (DA), is simpler and faster and can be done by translators of any level, but is less reliable. In this paper, we introduce Error Span Annotation (ESA), a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level error severity span marking of MQM. We validate ESA by comparing it to MQM and DA for 12 MT systems and one human reference translation (English to German) from WMT23. The results show that ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts.