Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.13809 v4 pith:TZIDFD6S submitted 2023-03-24 cs.CL

Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models

classification cs.CL
keywords promptinganalysiseapromptllmserrorevaluationlevelquality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative large language models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency across several NLP tasks, such as machine translation, text summarization. Recent research (Kocmi and Federmann, 2023) has shown that utilizing LLMs for assessing the quality of machine translation (MT) achieves state-of-the-art performance at the system level but \textit{performs poorly at the segment level}. To further improve the performance of LLMs on MT quality assessment, we investigate several prompting designs, and propose a new prompting method called \textbf{\texttt{Error Analysis Prompting}} (EAPrompt) by combining Chain-of-Thoughts (Wei et al., 2022) and Error Analysis (Lu et al., 2023). This technique emulates the commonly accepted human evaluation framework - Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM, Freitag et al. (2021)) and \textit{produces explainable and reliable MT evaluations at both the system and segment level}. Experimental Results from the WMT22 metrics shared task validate the effectiveness of EAPrompt on various LLMs, with different structures. Further analysis confirms that EAPrompt effectively distinguishes major errors from minor ones, while also sharing a similar distribution of the number of errors with MQM. These findings highlight the potential of EAPrompt as a human-like evaluator prompting technique for MT evaluation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques

    cs.CL 2024-06 accept novelty 7.0

    This systematic survey organizes prompt engineering into a taxonomy of 58 LLM techniques and 40 others, supplies a shared vocabulary, and offers guidelines for state-of-the-art models.

  2. LC-ICL: Label-Guided Contrastive In-Context Learning for Robust Information Extraction

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LC-ICL improves few-shot NER and RE by using label-guided contrastive demonstrations that pair positive samples with error-annotated negative samples.

  3. Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators

    cs.CL 2023-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMs show strong position bias when scoring model outputs, allowing easy manipulation of rankings, but calibration with multiple evidence, position balancing, and selective human input reduces this bias to better matc...

  4. Calibrating Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Summarization

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A reference-free proxy scoring framework combined with GIRB calibration produces better-aligned evaluation metrics for summarization and outperforms baselines across seven datasets.