MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120179416 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.wmt-1.99

Extended Study on Using Pretrained Language Models and YiSi-1 for Machine Translation Evaluation

2020· article· en· W3120179416 on OpenAlexaff
Chi-kiu Lo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine translationComputer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingTranslation (biology)Evaluation of machine translationBLEULanguage modelQuality (philosophy)EmbeddingMachine learningExample-based machine translationMachine translation software usability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an extended study on using pretrained language models and YiSi-1 for machine translation evaluation.Although the recently proposed contextual embedding based metrics, YiSi-1, significantly outperform BLEU and other metrics in correlating with human judgment on translation quality, we have yet to understand the full strength of using pretrained language models for machine translation evaluation.In this paper, we study YiSi-1's correlation with human translation quality judgment by varying three major attributes (which architecture; which intermediate layer; whether it is monolingual or multilingual) of the pretrained language models.Results of the study show further improvements over YiSi-1 on the WMT 2019 Metrics shared task.We also describe the pretrained language model we trained for evaluating Inuktitut machine translation output.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207