Interactive translation prediction versus conventional post-editing in 
practice: a study with the CasMaCat workbench

Sanchis-Trilles, Germán; Alabau, Vicent; Buck, Christian; Carl, Michael; Casacuberta, Francisco; García Martínez, Mercedes; Germann, Ulrich; González Rubio, Jesús; Hill, Robin L.; Koehn, Philipp; Leiva, Luis A.; Mesa-Lao, Bartholomé; Ortiz Martínez, Daniel; Saint-Amand, Herve; Tsoukala, Chara; Vidal, Enrique

doi:10.1007/s10590-014-9157-9

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Interactive translation prediction versus conventional post-editing in practice: a study with the CasMaCat workbench

MPS-Authors

There are no MPG-Authors in the publication available

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Sanchis-Trilles, G., Alabau, V., Buck, C., Carl, M., Casacuberta, F., García Martínez, M., et al. (2014). Interactive translation prediction versus conventional post-editing in practice: a study with the CasMaCat workbench. Machine Translation, 28(3-4), 217-235. doi:10.1007/s10590-014-9157-9.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0002-85C6-8

Abstract

We conducted a field trial in computer-assisted professional translation to compare interactive translation prediction (ITP) against conventional post-editing (PE) of machine translation (MT) output. In contrast to the conventional PE set-up, where an MT system first produces a static translation hypothesis that is then edited by a professional (hence “post-editing”), ITP constantly updates the translation hypothesis in real time in response to user edits. Our study involved nine professional translators and four reviewers working with the web-based CasMaCat workbench. Various new interactive features aiming to assist the post-editor/translator were also tested in this trial. Our results show that even with little training, ITP can be as productive as conventional PE in terms of the total time required to produce the final translation. Moreover, translation editors working with ITP require fewer key strokes to arrive at the final version of their translation.