Word-Level Confidence Estimation for Machine Translation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces and evaluates several different word-level confidence measures for machine translation. These measures provide a method for labeling each word in an automatically generated translation as correct or incorrect. All approaches to confidence estimation presented here are based on word posterior probabilities. Different concepts of word posterior probabilities as well as different ways of calculating them will be introduced and compared. They can be divided into two categories: System-based methods that explore knowledge provided by the translation system that generated the translations, and direct methods that are independent of the translation system. The system-based techniques make use of system output, such as word graphs or N-best lists. The word posterior probability is determined by summing the probabilities of the sentences in the translation hypothesis space that contains the target word. The direct confidence measures take other knowledge sources, such as word or phrase lexica, into account. They can be applied to output from nonstatistical machine translation systems as well. Experimental assessment of the different confidence measures on various translation tasks and in several language pairs will be presented. Moreover,the application of confidence measures for rescoring of translation hypotheses will be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it