Post-editing time as a measure of cognitive effort

Post-editing machine translations has been attracting increasing attention both as a common practice within the translation industry and as a way to evaluate Machine Translation (MT) quality via edit distance metrics between the MT and its post-edited version. Commonly used metrics such as HTER are limited in that they cannot fully capture the effort required for post-editing. Particularly, the cognitive effort required may vary for different types of errors and may also depend on the context. We suggest post-editing time as a way to assess some of the cognitive effort involved in post-editing. This paper presents two experiments investigating the connection between post-editing time and cognitive effort. First, we examine whether sentences with long and short post-editing times involve edits of different levels of difficulty. Second, we study the variability in post-editing time and other statistics among editors.

[1]  C. Orasan,et al.  Post­editing Experiments with Mt for a Controlled Language , 2009 .

[2]  Hermann Ney,et al.  Error Analysis of Statistical Machine Translation Output , 2006, LREC.

[3]  Lucia Specia,et al.  Exploiting Objective Annotations for Minimising Translation Post-editing Effort , 2011, EAMT.

[4]  Lucia Specia,et al.  Assessing the Post-Editing Effort for Automatic and Semi-Automatic Translations of DVD Subtitles , 2011, RANLP.

[5]  Matthew G. Snover,et al.  A Study of Translation Edit Rate with Targeted Human Annotation , 2006, AMTA.

[6]  Joseph Olive,et al.  Handbook of Natural Language Processing and Machine Translation: DARPA Global Autonomous Language Exploitation , 2011 .

[7]  Hans P. Krings,et al.  Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes , 2001 .

[8]  Maarit Koponen,et al.  Comparing human perceptions of post-editing effort with post-editing operations , 2012, WMT@NAACL-HLT.

[9]  Irina P. Temnikova,et al.  Cognitive Evaluation Approach for a Controlled Language Post-Editing Experiment , 2010, LREC.

[10]  Holger Schwenk,et al.  Qualitative Analysis of Post-Editing for High Quality Machine Translation , 2011, MTSUMMIT.

[11]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Findings of the 2011 Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation , 2011, WMT@EMNLP.

[12]  M. Tatsumi Correlation between Automatic Evaluation Metric Scores, Post-Editing Speed, and Some Other Factors , 2009, MTSUMMIT.

[13]  Nitin Madnani,et al.  TER-Plus: paraphrase, semantic, and alignment enhancements to Translation Edit Rate , 2009, Machine Translation.

[14]  Samuel Reese,et al.  FreeLing 2.1: Five Years of Open-source Language Processing Tools , 2010, LREC.

[15]  Ralph Weischedel,et al.  A STUDY OF TRANSLATION ERROR RATE WITH TARGETED HUMAN ANNOTATION , 2005 .

[16]  Lucia Specia,et al.  PET: a Tool for Post-editing and Assessing Machine Translation , 2012, LREC.

[17]  Sharon O’Brien,et al.  Can MT Output Be Evaluated Through Eye Tracking? , 2009, MTSUMMIT.

[18]  Sharon O'Brien,et al.  Towards predicting post-editing productivity , 2011, Machine Translation.