To MT or not to MT: An eye-tracking study on the reception by Dutch readers of different translation and creativity levels

This article presents the results of a pilot study involving the reception of a fictional short story translated from English into Dutch under four conditions: machine translation (MT), post-editing (PE), human translation (HT) and original source text (ST). The aim is to understand how creativity and errors in different translation modalities affect readers, specifically regarding cognitive load. Eight participants filled in a questionnaire, read a story using an eye-tracker, and conducted a retrospective think-aloud (RTA) interview. The results show that units of creative potential (UCP) increase cognitive load and that this effect is highest for HT and lowest for MT; no effect of error was observed. Triangulating the data with RTAs leads us to hypothesize that the higher cognitive load in UCPs is linked to increases in reader enjoyment and immersion. The effect of translation creativity on cognitive load in different translation modalities at word-level is novel and opens up new avenues for further research. All the code and data are available at https://github.com/INCREC/Pilot_to_MT_or_not_to_MT

QE4PE: Word-level Quality Estimation for Human Post-Editing

Word-level quality estimation (QE) detects erroneous spans in machine translations, which can direct and facilitate human post-editing. While the accuracy of word-level QE systems has been assessed extensively, their usability and downstream influence on the speed, quality and editing choices of human post-editing remain understudied. Our QE4PE study investigates the impact of word-level QE on machine translation (MT) post-editing in a realistic setting involving 42 professional post-editors across two translation directions. We compare four error-span highlight modalities, including supervised and uncertainty-based word-level QE methods, for identifying potential errors in the outputs of a state-of-the-art neural MT model. Post-editing effort and productivity are estimated by behavioral logs, while quality improvements are assessed by word- and segment-level human annotation. We find that domain, language and editors' speed are critical factors in determining highlights' effectiveness, with modest differences between human-made and automated QE highlights underlining a gap between accuracy and usability in professional workflows.