arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2605.13596cs.CL
收藏

创造力偏差:机器评估在文学翻译中难以应对创造力

Creativity Bias: How Machine Evaluation Struggles with Creativity in Literary Translations

Centre for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen(语言认知中心,格罗宁根大学)

Kyo Gerrits, Rik van Noord, Ana Guerberof Arenas

AI总结:

本文研究了自动评估指标和LLM作为评判者在多语言、多体裁和翻译模式下的文学翻译表现,发现其在评估创造力时与专业评估存在显著偏差,且对机器翻译文本存在系统性偏好。

摘要:

本文探讨了自动评估指标(AEMs)和LLM作为评判者在多语言、多体裁和翻译模式下的文学翻译表现。研究旨在评估这些工具在评估翻译质量、创造力(创造性转变与错误)时与专业评估的一致性,并检验其能否替代繁琐的手动注释。创建了一个包含三种翻译模式(人工翻译、机器翻译和后编辑)、三种体裁和三种语言对的文学翻译数据集,并由经验丰富的专业文学翻译者详细标注了创造力。结果显示,AEMs和LLM作为评判者在评估创造力时与专业评估相关性差,LLM作为评判者系统性偏好机器翻译文本,并惩罚具有创造力和文化适当性的解决方案。此外,对于更文学化的体裁如诗歌,表现更差。这突显了当前自动评估工具在文学翻译中的根本局限性,并强调了需要创建新工具的必要性,这些工具不应频繁将非常规翻译视为错误。

英文摘要:

This article investigates the performance of automatic evaluation metrics (AEMs) and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation on literary translation across multiple languages, genres, and translation modalities. The aim is to assess how well these tools align with professionals when evaluating translation, creativity (creative shifts & errors), and see if they can substitute laborious manual annotations. A dataset of literary translations across three modalities (human translation, machine translation, and post-editing), three genres and three language pairs was created and annotated in detail for creativity by experienced professional literary translators. The results show that both AEMs and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations correlate poorly with professional evaluations on creativity, with LLM-as-a-judge showing a systematic bias in favour of machine-translated texts and penalising creative and culturally appropriate solutions. Moreover, performance is consistently worse for more literary genres such as poetry. This highlights fundamental limitations of current automatic evaluation tools for literary translation and the need to create new tools that do not frequently consider out of routine translations as errors.

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。

↑