Translationese-index: Using Likelihood Ratios for Graded and Generalizable Measurement of Translationese

In this paper, we propose the first quantitative measure for translationese -- the translationese-index (T-index) for graded and generalizable measurement of translationese, computed from the likelihood ratios of two contrastively fine-tuned language models (LMs). We use a synthesized dataset and a dataset with translations in the wild to evaluate T-index's generalizability in cross-domain settings and its validity against human judgments. Our results show that T-index is both robust and efficient. T-index scored by two 0.5B LMs fine-tuned on only 1-5k pairs of synthetic data can well capture translationese in the wild. We find that the relative differences in T-indices between translations can well predict pairwise translationese annotations obtained from human annotators; and the absolute values of T-indices correlate well with human ratings of degrees of translationese (Pearson's $r = 0.568$). Additionally, the correlation between T-index and existing machine translation (MT) quality estimation (QE) metrics such as BLEU and COMET is low, suggesting that T-index is not covered by these metrics and can serve as a complementary metric in MT QE.

ArguGPT: evaluating, understanding and identifying argumentative essays generated by GPT models

AI generated content (AIGC) presents considerable challenge to educators around the world. Instructors need to be able to detect such text generated by large language models, either with the naked eye or with the help of some tools. There is also growing need to understand the lexical, syntactic and stylistic features of AIGC. To address these challenges in English language teaching, we first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models in response to essay prompts from three sources: (1) in-class or homework exercises, (2) TOEFL and (3) GRE writing tasks. Machine-generated texts are paired with roughly equal number of human-written essays with three score levels matched in essay prompts. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them. But the number rises to 67% after one round of minimal self-training. Next, we perform linguistic analyses of these essays, which show that machines produce sentences with more complex syntactic structures while human essays tend to be lexically more complex. Finally, we test existing AIGC detectors and build our own detectors using SVMs and RoBERTa. Results suggest that a RoBERTa fine-tuned with the training set of ArguGPT achieves above 90% accuracy in both essay- and sentence-level classification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive analysis of argumentative essays produced by generative large language models. Machine-authored essays in ArguGPT and our models will be made publicly available at https://github.com/huhailinguist/ArguGPT