Cited by 78Natural Language Processing Techniquesscientometrics and bibliometrics researchTranslation Studies and Practices

Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Papers

Open access
Marie, Benjamin, Fujita, Atsushi, Rubino, Raphael·2021·Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Benjamin Marie, Atsushi Fujita, Raphael Rubino. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.566

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Heuristic-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE have flaws, and underdocumented hyperparameters can present reproducibility challenges.

    “Nevertheless these heuristicbased metrics have flaws (Callison-Burch et al., 2006) and underdocumented hyperparameters can present reproducibility challenges (Marie et al., 2021).”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Marie et al., 2021

  • Most works on language modeling do not perform statistical significance testing (Marie et al., 2021).

    “Most works on language modeling do not perform statistical significance testing (Marie et al., 2021).”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Marie et al., 2021

  • Comparing results across papers can be misleading due to a wide range of experimental differences, including prompts, sample size, metric calculation, and more (Marie et al., 2021).

    “Comparing results across papers can be misleading due to a wide range of experimental differences, including prompts, sample size, metric calculation, and more (Marie et al., 2021).”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Marie et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marie, B., Fujita, A., & Rubino, R.
Affiliations
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (JP)
Venue
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2021
Pages
7297-7306
OpenAlex
W3174292387
Cited by
75
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 12
FWCI
7.62
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20K19879, 19H05660)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
Keywords
machine translation, research credibility, meta-evaluation, publication quality, research quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review