Smarter edits? Post-editing with error highlights and translation suggestions
User study finds LLM-derived APE error highlights and correction suggestions don't improve translator productivity vs regular post-editing, though APE highlights are better received than QE-derived ones.
Excerpt
As MT quality increases, interest in enhanced post-editing features such as QE-derived error highlights is growing, yet evidence for their usefulness remains limited. In this work, we explore the usefulness of LLM-derived error highlights and correction suggestions based on automatic post-editing (APE). We conduct a study where professional translators (En-Nl) post-edit translations using APE error highlights and correction suggestions and compare productivity, quality and user experience to regular PE and PE with QE-derived highlights. While no condition yielded productivity or quality gains compared to regular PE, APE highlights were better received than QE-derived highlights, and correction suggestions improved overall user experience.
Read at source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21135v1