Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translation

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 2406.12419 v3 pith:56S3U363 submitted 2024-06-18 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords errorannotationspantranslationannotatorsqualityannotationsassign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Annually, research teams spend large amounts of money to evaluate the quality of machine translation systems (WMT, inter alia). This is expensive because it requires a lot of expert human labor. In the recently adopted annotation protocol, Error Span Annotation (ESA), annotators mark erroneous parts of the translation and then assign a final score. A lot of the annotator time is spent on scanning the translation for possible errors. In our work, we help the annotators by pre-filling the error annotations with recall-oriented automatic quality estimation. With this AI assistance, we obtain annotations at the same quality level while cutting down the time per span annotation by half (71s/error span $\rightarrow$ 31s/error span). The biggest advantage of the ESA$^\mathrm{AI}$ protocol is an accurate priming of annotators (pre-filled error spans) before they assign the final score. This alleviates a potential automation bias, which we confirm to be low. In our experiments, we find that the annotation budget can be further reduced by almost 25% with filtering of examples that the AI deems to be likely to be correct.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multilingual Performance Biases of Large Language Models in Education

    cs.CL 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs are less reliable at tutoring, feedback, and misconception detection in lower-resource languages, and English prompts usually work as well as or better than prompts in the target language.

Pith tools