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.

Combining pre-editing and post-editing to improve SMT of user-generated content

A Large-Scale Evaluation of Pre-editing Strategies for Improving User-Generated Content Translation

A Study of Pre-editing Methods at the Lexical Level in the Process of Machine Translation

The ACCEPT Portal: An Online Framework for the Pre-editing and Post-editing of User-Generated Content

The impact of traditional and interactive post-editing on Machine Translation User Experience, quality, and productivity

Automated Postediting of Documents

Using Machine Translation and Post-Editing in the TRAPD Approach: Effects on the Quality of Translated Survey Texts

Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationese

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

Correlations between productivity and quality when post-editing in a professional context

The Role of Machine Translation Quality Estimation in the Post-Editing Workflow

Understanding Pre-Editing for Black-Box Neural Machine Translation

A review of the state-of-the-art in automatic post-editing

Estimating post-editing effort: a study on human judgements, task-based and reference-based metrics of MT quality

Evaluating Human Correction Quality for Machine Translation from Crowdsourcing.

Efficient Machine Translation Corpus Generation

Global Source-Aware Statistical Post-Editing for General Mt: Sentence Specification Via Pseudo-Feedback

Development of post-editing skills in machine translation

Post-edits Are Preferences Too

Effects of pre-editing operations on audiovisual translation using TRADOS: an experimental analysis of Saudi students’ translations

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