The efficacy of human post-editing for language translation

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 439-448

  Green, Spence ^a   Heer, Jeffrey ^a   Manning, Christopher D ^a  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

Experiment; Language translation; Modeling; Post editing

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC MACHINES; EXPERIMENTAL DATUM; INTERACTION PATTERN; LANGUAGE PAIRS; LANGUAGE TRANSLATION; PART OF SPEECH; POST-EDITING; SOURCE TEXT;

EXPERIMENTS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HUMAN ENGINEERING; MODELS; QUALITY CONTROL;

TRANSLATION (LANGUAGES);

EID: 84877961483     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2470654.2470718     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. Albrecht, J. S., Hwa, R., and Marai, G. E. Correcting automatic translations through collaborations between MT and monolingual target-language users. In EACL (2009).
2. Allen, J. Post-editing. In Computers and Translation: A translator's guide, H. Somers, Ed. John Benjamins, 2003, ch. 16, 297-317.
3. Ambati, V., Vogel, S., and Carbonell, J. Collaborative workflow for crowdsourcing translation. In CSCW (2012).
4. Baayen, R., Davidson, D., and Bates, D. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 4 (2008), 390-412.
5. Bates, D. M. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Tech. rep., R package version 0.999999-0, http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4, 2007.
6. Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. Methodological reflections on the experimental design of time-pressure studies. Across Languages and Cultures 10, 2 (2009), 193-206.
7. Bernth, A., and McCord, M. The effect of source analysis on translation confidence. In Envisioning Machine Translation in the Information Future, J. White, Ed., vol. 1934 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2000, 250-259.
8. Bisbey, R., and Kay. The MIND translation system: a study in man-machine collaboration. Tech. Rep. P-4786, Rand Corp., March 1972.
9. Callison-Burch, C. Linear B system description for the 2005 NIST MT evaluation exercise. In NIST Machine Translation Evaluation Workshop (2005).
10. Callison-Burch, C. Fast, cheap, and creative: Evaluating translation quality using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. In EMNLP (2009).
11. Callison-Burch, C., Koehn, P., Monz, C., Post, M., Soricut, R., and Specia, L. Findings of the 2012 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. In WMT (2012).
12. Campbell, S. A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation. Target 11, 1 (1999), 33-63.
13. Carl, M. Translog-II: a program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. In LREC (2012).
14. Carl, M., and Jakobsen, A. Towards statistical modelling of translators' activity data. International Journal of Speech Technology 12 (2009), 125-138.
15. Carl, M., Kay, M., and Jensen, K. T. H. Long distance revisions in drafting and post-editing. In CICLing (2010).
16. Chen, M. C., Anderson, J. R., and Sohn, M. H. What can a mouse cursor tell us more?: correlation of eye/mouse movements on web browsing. In CHI (2001).
17. Christensen, R. H. B. ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data. Tech. rep., R package version 2012.01-19, http://cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal, 2011.
18. Clark, H. H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 4 (August 1973), 335-359.
19. Flournoy, R., and Duran, C. Machine translation and document localization at Adobe: From pilot to production. In MT Summit XII (2009).
20. Garcia, I. Translating by post-editing: is it the way forward? Machine Translation 25 (2011), 217-237.
21. Gelman, A. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27, 15 (2008), 2865-2873.
22. Guerberof, A. Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation. International Journal of Localization 7, 1 (2009).
23. Hu, C., Bederson, B., and Resnik, P. Translation by iterative collaboration between monolingual users. In Graphics Interface (GI) (2010).
24. Hu, C., Bederson, B. B., Resnik, P., and Kronrod, Y. MonoTrans2: a new human computation system to support monolingual translation. In CHI (2011).
25. Hu, C., Resnik, P., Kronrod, Y., and Bederson, B. Deploying MonoTrans widgets in the wild. In CHI (2012).
26. Huang, J., White, R., and Buscher, G. User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search. In CHI (2012).
27. Jakobsen, A. Logging target text production with Translog. In Probing the process in translation: methods and results, G. Hansen, Ed. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 1999, 9-20.
28. Kay, M. The proper place of men and machines in language translation. Tech. Rep. CSL-80-11, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), 1980.
29. Koehn, P. A process study of computer-aided translation. Machine Translation 23 (2009), 241-263.
30. Koehn, P. Enabling monolingual translators: post-editing vs. options. In HLT-NAACL (2010).
31. Krings, H. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Kent State University Press, 2001.
32. Lagoudaki, E. Translation editing environments. In MT Summit XII: Workshop on Beyond Translation Memories (2009).
33. Lawson, V., Ed. Practical Experience of Machine Translation, North-Holland (1982).
34. Lin, D. On the structural complexity of natural language sentences. In COLING (1996).
35. Lopez, A. Statistical machine translation. ACM Computing Surveys 40, 8 (2008), 1-49.
36. Lopez, A. Putting human assessments of machine translation systems in order. In WMT (2012).
37. Morita, D., and Ishida, T. Collaborative translation by monolinguals with machine translators. In IUI (2009).
38. Morita, D., and Ishida, T. Designing protocols for collaborative translation. In Principles of Practice in Multi-Agent Systems (2009).
39. O'Brien, S. Machine translatability and post-editing effort: How do they relate? In Translating and the Computer (2004).
40. O'Brien, S. Methodologies for measuring the correlations between post-editing effort and machine translatability. Machine Translation 19 (2005), 37-58.
41. O'Brien, S. Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in translatology 14, 3 (2006), 185-205.
42. O'Brien, S. Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures 7, 1 (2006), 1-21.
43. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL (2002).
44. Plitt, M., and Masselot, F. A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localisation context. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 93 (2010), 7-16.
45. Schilperoord, J. It's About Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam:Rodopi, 1996.
46. Skadiņš, R., Puriņš, M., Skadiņa, I., and Vasiljevs, A. Evaluation of SMT in localization to under-resourced inflected language. In EAMT (2011).
47. Tatsumi, M. Post-Editing Machine Translated Text in a Commercial Setting: Observation and Statistical Analysis. PhD thesis, Dublin City University, 2010.
48. Wallis, J. Interactive translation vs pre-translation in the context of translation memory systems: Investigating the effects of translation method on productivity, quality and translator satisfaction. Master's thesis, University of Ottawa, 2006.
49. Yamashita, N., Inaba, R., Kuzuoka, H., and Ishida, T. Difficulties in establishing common ground in multiparty groups using machine translation. In CHI (2009).