arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2410.18697cs.CLcs.AI
收藏

大型语言模型在文学翻译中到底表现如何?基于人类与大型语言模型的文学翻译评估

How Good Are LLMs for Literary Translation, Really? Literary Translation Evaluation with Humans and LLMs

University of Mannheim(曼海姆大学);University of Aberdeen(阿伯丁大学);University of Technology Nuremberg(纽伦堡工业大学)

Ran Zhang, Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger

AI总结:

本研究通过构建LITEVAL-CORPUS语料库,系统评估文学翻译质量,发现人类评估的充分性受方案复杂度和评估者专业水平影响,且人工翻译始终优于大型语言模型翻译。

摘要:

近期研究将文学机器翻译(MT)视为机器翻译领域的新挑战。然而,文学机器翻译的评估仍是一个开放性问题。我们通过引入LITEVAL-CORPUS为这一持续讨论做出贡献,该语料库是一个段落级平行语料库,包含经过验证的人工翻译和9个机器翻译系统的输出,涵盖四个语言对,总计超过2000个翻译和13000个评估句子,耗资4500欧元。该语料库使我们能够(i)考察不同复杂度的人类评估方案的一致性和充分性,(ii)比较学生和专业人士的评估,(iii)评估基于大型语言模型的指标以及(iv)大型语言模型本身的有效性。我们的研究结果表明,人类评估的充分性受两个因素控制:评估方案的复杂度(越复杂越不充分)和评估者的专业水平(专业水平越高,评估越充分)。例如,MQM(多维质量指标)作为一种复杂方案,是非文学人工机器翻译评估的事实标准,但在文学翻译评估中却基本不适用:在学生评估者中,近60%的人工翻译被误判为与机器翻译无法区分或不如机器翻译。相比之下,BWS(最佳-最差缩放)这一简单得多的方案,能以80-100%的比率识别出人工翻译。自动指标的表现则差得多,识别率最多仅为20%。我们的总体评估表明,已发表的人工翻译始终优于大型语言模型的翻译,即使是最新的大型语言模型,其翻译也往往比人类翻译更加直译且多样性更低。

英文摘要:

Recent research has focused on literary machine translation (MT) as a new challenge in MT. However, the evaluation of literary MT remains an open problem. We contribute to this ongoing discussion by introducing LITEVAL-CORPUS, a paragraph-level parallel corpus containing verified human translations and outputs from 9 MT systems, which totals over 2k translations and 13k evaluated sentences across four language pairs, costing 4.5k C. This corpus enables us to (i) examine the consistency and adequacy of human evaluation schemes with various degrees of complexity, (ii) compare evaluations by students and professionals, assess the effectiveness of (iii) LLM-based metrics and (iv) LLMs themselves. Our findings indicate that the adequacy of human evaluation is controlled by two factors: the complexity of the evaluation scheme (more complex is less adequate) and the expertise of evaluators (higher expertise yields more adequate evaluations). For instance, MQM (Multidimensional Quality Metrics), a complex scheme and the de facto standard for non-literary human MT evaluation, is largely inadequate for literary translation evaluation: with student evaluators, nearly 60% of human translations are misjudged as indistinguishable or inferior to machine translations. In contrast, BWS (BEST-WORST SCALING), a much simpler scheme, identifies human translations at a rate of 80-100%. Automatic metrics fare dramatically worse, with rates of at most 20%. Our overall evaluation indicates that published human translations consistently outperform LLM translations, where even the most recent LLMs tend to produce considerably more literal and less diverse translations compared to humans.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑