Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.13809 v4 pith:TZIDFD6S submitted 2023-03-24 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords promptinganalysiseapromptllmserrorevaluationlevelquality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative large language models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency across several NLP tasks, such as machine translation, text summarization. Recent research (Kocmi and Federmann, 2023) has shown that utilizing LLMs for assessing the quality of machine translation (MT) achieves state-of-the-art performance at the system level but \textit{performs poorly at the segment level}. To further improve the performance of LLMs on MT quality assessment, we investigate several prompting designs, and propose a new prompting method called \textbf{\texttt{Error Analysis Prompting}} (EAPrompt) by combining Chain-of-Thoughts (Wei et al., 2022) and Error Analysis (Lu et al., 2023). This technique emulates the commonly accepted human evaluation framework - Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM, Freitag et al. (2021)) and \textit{produces explainable and reliable MT evaluations at both the system and segment level}. Experimental Results from the WMT22 metrics shared task validate the effectiveness of EAPrompt on various LLMs, with different structures. Further analysis confirms that EAPrompt effectively distinguishes major errors from minor ones, while also sharing a similar distribution of the number of errors with MQM. These findings highlight the potential of EAPrompt as a human-like evaluator prompting technique for MT evaluation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning to Substitute Words with Model-based Score Ranking

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A BERT model fine-tuned with ranking losses against BARTScore substitutes words to improve that score, outperforming supervised and LLM baselines on BARTScore-based metrics without human labels.

  2. The Science of Evaluating Foundation Models

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-and-checklist proposal that organizes LLM evaluation into an ABCD framework (Algorithm, Big Data, Computation, Domain Expertise) for context-aware, documented assessment.

Pith tools