The DOI matches its DataCite record.
A Comparison of Approaches to Document-level Machine Translation
Open accessAbstract
Document-level machine translation conditions on surrounding sentences to produce coherent translations. There has been much recent work in this area with the introduction of custom model architectures and decoding algorithms. This paper presents a systematic comparison of selected approaches from the literature on two benchmarks for which document-level phenomena evaluation suites exist. We find that a simple method based purely on back-translating monolingual document-level data performs as well as much more elaborate alternatives, both in terms of document-level metrics as well as human evaluation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The translation task can largely be accomplished at the sentence level despite prior work framing translation at the document level, and the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances.
“We believe this result reflects that the task can largely be accomplished at the sentence-level despite some prior work has framed translation at the document-level [64], and that the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances [52].”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419
“We believe this result reflects that the task can largely be accomplished at the sentence-level despite some prior work has framed translation at the document-level [64], and that the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances [52].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, Z., Edunov, S., & Auli, M.
- Affiliations
- Meta (United Kingdom) (GB)
- ORCID
- Auli, Michael
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2101.11040
- OpenAlex
- W3122354723
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Keywords
- document-level machine translation, back-translation, translation coherence, human evaluation
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
