PORT: a Precision-Order-Recall MT Evaluation Metric for Tuning
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
Many machine translation (MT) evaluation metrics have been shown to correlate better with human judgment than BLEU. In principle, tuning on these metrics should yield better systems than tuning on BLEU. However, due to issues such as speed, requirements for linguistic resources, and optimization difficulty, they have not been widely adopted for tuning. This paper presents PORT1 , a new MT evaluation metric which combines precision, recall and an ordering metric and which is primarily designed for tuning MT systems. PORT does not require external resources and is quick to compute. It has a better correlation with human judgment than BLEU. We compare PORT-tuned MT systems to BLEU-tuned baselines in five experimental conditions involving four language pairs. PORT tuning achieves consistently better performance than BLEU tuning, according to four automated metrics (including BLEU) and to human evaluation: in comparisons of outputs from 300 source sentences, human judges preferred the PORT-tuned output 45.3% of the time (vs. 32.7% BLEU tuning preferences and 22.0% ties).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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