MTUncertainty:Assessing the Need for Post-editing of Machine Translation Outputs by Fine-tuning OpenAI LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE) is an essential step of the modern translation production process. TQE is critical in assessing both machine translation (MT) and human translation (HT) quality without reference translations. The ability to evaluate or even simply estimate the quality of translation automatically may open significant efficiency gains through process optimisation. This work examines whether the state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) can be used for this uncertainty estimation of MT output quality. We take OpenAI models as an example technology and approach TQE as a binary classification task. On eight language pairs including English to Italian, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Turkish, and Chinese, our experimental results show that fine-tuned gpt3.5 can demonstrate good performance on translation quality prediction tasks, i.e. whether the translation needs to be edited. Another finding is that simply increasing the sizes of LLMs does not lead to apparent better performances on this task by comparing the performance of three different versions of OpenAI models: curie, davinci, and gpt3.5 with 13B, 175B, and 175B parameters, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".