Post-editing: Addressing Real Challenges

    • How do you go about implementing Post-editing (PE) processes in your company as an LSP?
    • How does PE differ from reviewing TM fuzzy matches?
    • What is the post-editor’s role and how can it fit in the company’s workflow?
    • How is quality to be assessed? And productivity?
    • Is it true that PE contributes to reducing costs?

These are some of the questions whose answers involve a challenge when implementing PE in a real scenario. Questions that I have been working on for Linguaserve, who set up the EDI-TA last March 2012, in agreement with Universidad Europea de Madrid, with three main objectives:

(a) to define the functionalities for a post-editing tool,

(b) to design a methodology for training post-editors,

(c) to analyze the economic impact of implementing post-editing processes.

EDI-TA has a practical orientation, as a business oriented R&D project, and takes as its starting point TAUS/CNGL definition of PE as “the correction of machine-generated translation output to ensure it meets a level of quality negotiated in advance between client and post-editor”.

Read below the main aspects of the project, recently presented at the International Workshop on Expertise in Translation and Post-editing Research and Application (ETP), Copenhagen Business School, August 17 to August 18, 2012 

Sources for this work (not mentioned in the presentation) are:

  • Allen, J. (2003) “Post-editing” in Somers, H. ed., Computers and Translation. A translator’s guide. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 297-317.
  • Aziz, W., Sousa, S. C. M., Specia, L. (2012) “PET: a tool for post-editing and assessing machine translation”, in The Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC ’12, Istanbul, Turkey. May 2012
  • Fiederer, R. and O’Brien, S. (2009) “Quality and Machine Translation: A realistic objective?” The Journal of Specialised Translation [online], issue 11, January, 52-74. Available: http://www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_fiederer_obrien.pdf [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • Garcia, I. (2011) “Translating by post-editing: is it the way forward?” Machine Translation, 25(3), 217-237
  • Guerberof, A. (2009) “Productivity and quality in MT post-editing” MT Summit 2009 Workshop 3. Available: http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-TOC.htm [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • Guerberof, A. (2010) “Project management and machine translation” Multilingual, vol. 7 (1): 34-38.
  • Guzmán, R. (2007) “Manual MT Post-editing: if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” Translation Journal, vol. 11, 4. October 2007.
  • O’ Brien, S., Roturier, J., & Almeida, G. D. (2009) “Post-Editing MT Output. Views for the researcher, trainer, publisher and practitioner” MT Summit 2009 tutorial. Available: http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-OBrien-ppt.pdf [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • O’ Brien, S. (2011a) Introduction to Post-Editing: Who, What, How and Where to Next? [online] Available: http://www.cngl.ie/node/2542 [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • O’Brien, S. (2011b) “Towards predicting post-editing productivity” Machine Translation, 25(3), 197-215
  • O’Brien, S. (2012) “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation” The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 17, Jan. 2012
  • Roturier, J. (2004) “Assessing a set of Controlled Language rules: Can they improve the performance of commercial Machine Translation systems?” Aslib ed., Translating and the Computer 26. London.
  • Specia, L., Cancedda, N., Dymetman, M., Turchi, M., & Cristianini, N. (2009) “Estimating the Sentence-Level Quality of Machine Translation Systems” 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT-2009), 28-35. Barcelona, Spain
  • Specia, L., and Farzindar, A. (2010) “Estimating Machine Translation Post-Editing Effort with HTER” AMTA-2010 Workshop Bringing MT to the User: MT Research and the Translation Industry. Denver, Colorado. Available: http://amta2010.amtaweb.org/ [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • Specia, L. (2011) “Exploiting Objective Annotations for Measuring Translation Post-editing Effort” Proceedings of the EAMT. Leuven, Belgium. Available: http://www.ccl.kuleuven.be/EAMT2011/ [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • TAUS/CNGL (2011) Machine Translation Post-editing Guidelines. Available: http://www.translationautomation.com/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines.html [accessed 28 June 2012]
  • Roturier, J. (2004) “Assessing a set of Controlled Language rules: Can they improve the performance of commercial Machine Translation systems?” In Aslib ed. Translating and the Computer 26. London.
  • Torrejón Díaz, E. y C. Rico Pérez (2002) “Controlled Translation: A new teaching scenario tailor-made for the translation industry” 6th EAMT Workshop, Teaching Machine Translation, November 14-15, 2002. European Association for Machine Translation, pp. 107-116
  • Vieira. L. Specia, L. (2011) “A Review of Machine Translation Tools from a Post-Editing Perspective” 3rd Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop Bringing MT to the User: Research Meets Translators (JEC 2011), Luxembourg.
Anuncios

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s