2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10590-019-09235-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A user study of neural interactive translation prediction

Abstract: Machine translation (MT) on its own is generally not good enough to produce highquality translations, so it is common to have humans intervening in the translation process to improve MT output. A typical intervention is post-editing (PE), where a human translator corrects errors in the MT output. Another is interactive translation prediction (ITP), which involves an MT system presenting a translator with translation suggestions they can accept or reject, actions the MT system then uses to present them with new… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
76
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
3
76
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several works aimed at building more productive NMT systems. Related to our work, studies on interactive NMT systems (Knowles and Koehn, 2016;Peris et al, 2017;Hokamp and Liu, 2017) proved the efficacy of this framework. A body of work has been done aiming to build adaptive NMT systems, which continuously learn from human corrections (Turchi et al, 2017;Peris and Casacuberta, 2018b).…”
Section: Related Worksupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Several works aimed at building more productive NMT systems. Related to our work, studies on interactive NMT systems (Knowles and Koehn, 2016;Peris et al, 2017;Hokamp and Liu, 2017) proved the efficacy of this framework. A body of work has been done aiming to build adaptive NMT systems, which continuously learn from human corrections (Turchi et al, 2017;Peris and Casacuberta, 2018b).…”
Section: Related Worksupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Additionally, in a hypothetical real application, the inclusion of an interactive correction process could be considered. Interactive neural systems provide encouraging results (Knowles and Koehn, 2016;Peris et al, 2017) in the machine translation field. In such systems, the user corrects the errors committed by the system, the system takes into account these corrections and changes its outputs, to produce a hopefully better caption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…feedback, (Azadi and Khadivi, 2015;Cai et al, 2013;Green et al, 2014) improved the suffix generation, (González-Rubio et al, 2010) integrated of confidence measures in the interactive pipeline, etc. Given the recent success of NMT, this technology has also be adapted to fit into the interactive framework (Knowles and Koehn, 2016;Peris et al, 2017b). Alternative technologies, such as translation memories, also were modified to allow interaction (Green et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%