Cited by 49Natural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech Recognition and SynthesisTopic Modeling

Can Neural Machine Translation be Improved with User Feedback?

Open access
Kreutzer, Julia, Khadivi, Shahram, Matusov, Evgeny, Riezler, Stefan·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 3 (Industry Papers)

Abstract

Julia Kreutzer, Shahram Khadivi, Evgeny Matusov, Stefan Riezler. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 3 (Industry Papers). 2018.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/n18-3012

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even human labelers and researchers have shown disagreements in annotation.

    “Even human labelers and researchers have shown disagreements in annotation [86].”

    From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [86]

    Section 3.1 (page unavailable) reports low agreement among expert annotators rating translations (Fleiss’ κ = 0.12) and an example of disagreement between users and experts. This supports disagreement among human labelers, but the paper does not identify the annotators as researchers or report disagreement among researchers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rating feedback is easy to specify, but inter-annotator agreement is often low because of the subjective nature of the task.

    “While rating feedback is easy to specify, often inter-annotator agreement is low because of the subjective nature of the task [86].”
  • Preference-based feedback provides no further improvement in inter-annotator agreement when compared to rating feedback.

    “Moreover, preference-based feedback provides no further improvement in terms of inter-annotator agreement when compared to rating feedback [86].”

    From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [86]

    Section 3.1 reports inter-annotator agreement for five-star ratings and for a binary task in which experts agreed or disagreed with user ratings. Our copy does not report a preference-based feedback agreement measure or compare it with rating feedback (searched: preference-based feedback, pairwise ranking, inter-annotator agreement). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Ben- gio. 2015. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In Third Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations. San Diego, California.
  2. Léon Bottou, Jonas Peters, Joaquin Quiñonero- Candela, Denis X. Charles, D. Max Chickering, Elon Portugaly, Dipanakar Ray, Patrice Simard, and Ed Snelson. 2013. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational ad- vertising. Journal of Machine Learning Research 14:3207-3260.
  3. Y Gal and Z Ghahramani. 2016. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. New York City, NY.
  4. Nan Jiang and Lihong Li. 2016. Doubly robust off- policy value evaluation for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). New York, NY.
  5. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Edinburgh neural machine translation sys- tems for wmt 16. In Proceedings of the First Con- ference on Machine Translation. Berlin, Germany.
  6. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Improving neural machine translation mod- els with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. Berlin, Germany.
  7. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016c. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Berlin, Germany.
  8. Artem Sokolov, Julia Kreutzer, Stefan Riezler, and Christopher Lo. 2016b. Stochastic structured pre- diction under bandit feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Barcelona, Spain.
  9. Artem Sokolov, Julia Kreutzer, Kellen Sunder- land, Pavel Danchenko, Witold Szymaniak, Hagen Fürstenau, and Stefan Riezler. 2017. A shared task on bandit learning for machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation. Copenhagen, Denmark.
  10. Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural ma- chine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kreutzer, J., Khadivi, S., Matusov, E., & Riezler, S.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • eBay (Ireland) (IE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 3 (Industry Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
92-105
OpenAlex
W2798047776
Cited by
49
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
neural machine translation, user feedback, human-in-the-loop translation, translation quality improvement

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