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.

Online Learning for Neural Machine Translation Post-editing

Non-Parametric Online Learning from Human Feedback for Neural Machine Translation

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

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

Continuous Learning from Human Post-Edits for Neural Machine Translation

A User-Study on Online Adaptation of Neural Machine Translation to Human Post-Edits

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

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

Neural Machine Translation Quality and Post-Editing Performance

Post-editing Effort of a Novel With Statistical and Neural Machine Translation

Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editing

Integrating post-editing into the subtitling classroom: what do subtitlers-to-be think?

Post-editing Productivity with Neural Machine Translation: An Empirical Assessment of Speed and Quality in the Banking and Finance Domain

Extract and Edit: An Alternative to Back-Translation for Unsupervised Neural Machine Translation

Optimizing the Training Schedule of Multilingual NMT using Reinforcement Learning

Online Distilling from Checkpoints for Neural Machine Translation

Towards Interlingua Neural Machine Translation

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

Optimizing Non-Decomposable Evaluation Metrics for Neural Machine Translation

Fine-Tuning by Curriculum Learning for Non-Autoregressive Neural Machine Translation

Efficient Machine Translation Corpus Generation