Abstract:This study aims to analyse how translation experts from the German department of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) identify and correct different error categories in neural machine translated texts (NMT) and their post-edited versions (NMTPE). The term translation expert encompasses translator, post-editor as well as revisor. Even though we focus on neural machine-translated segments, translator and post-editor are used synonymously because of the combined workflow using CAT-Tools as well as machine translation. Only the distinction between post-editor, which refers to a DGT translation expert correcting the neural machine translation output, and revisor, which refers to a DGT translation expert correcting the post-edited version of the neural machine translation output, is important and made clear whenever relevant. Using an automatic error annotation tool and the more fine-grained manual error annotation framework to identify characteristic error categories in the DGT texts, a corpus analysis revealed that quality assurance measures by post-editors and revisors of the DGT are most often necessary for lexical errors. More specifically, the corpus analysis showed that, if post-editors correct mistranslations, terminology or stylistic errors in an NMT sentence, revisors are likely to correct the same error type in the same post-edited sentence, suggesting that the DGT experts were being primed by the NMT output. Subsequently, we designed a controlled eye-tracking and key-logging experiment to compare participants’ eye movements for test sentences containing the three identified error categories (mistranslations, terminology or stylistic errors) and for control sentences without errors. We examined the three error types’ effect on early (first fixation durations, first pass durations) and late eye movement measures (e.g., total reading time and regression path durations). Linear mixed-effects regression models predict what kind of behaviour of the DGT experts is associated with the correction of different error types during the post-editing process.

Plasma bilirubin and serum free fatty acids after myocardial infarction.

Automated Postediting of Documents

Systematic Review of English/Arabic Machine Translation Postediting: Implications for AI Application in Translation Research and Pedagogy

A roadmap to neural automatic post-editing: an empirical approach

Review on Machine Translation Post-Editing of Science and Technology Texts in China

Online Learning for Neural Machine Translation Post-editing

Differentiating Editing, Post-Editing and Revision

An Empirical Study of Automatic Post-Editing

Computer Assisted Translation with Neural Quality Estimation and Automatic Post-Editing

Bring More Attention to Syntactic Symmetry for Automatic Postediting of High-Quality Machine Translations

Netmarble AI Center's WMT21 Automatic Post-Editing Shared Task Submission

Identifying the Machine Translation Error Types with the Greatest Impact on Post-editing Effort

Post-edits Are Preferences Too

Comparing Chinese-English MT Performance Involving ChatGPT and MT Providers and the Efficacy of AI mediated Post-Editing

Translation Quality and Error Recognition in Professional Neural Machine Translation Post-Editing

Re-thinking Machine Translation Post-Editing Guidelines

Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationese

Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editing

The Machine Translation Post-Editing Annotation System (MTPEAS)

Efficient Machine Translation Corpus Generation

Learning Non-Monotonic Automatic Post-Editing of Translations from Human Orderings