Re: IRC log from today's meeting

Hi Yves, Dave, Phil, Arle, Serge, all,

I fully agree, Yves. Your small suggestion to drop the "self-generated" 
part of the definition for MT confidence score make sense, is very 
reasonable, is still - to my understanding doable within ITS 2.0, and 
should be done.

Kind regards,
olaf-michael

On 2013-07-17 18:50, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Dave, Arle, Phil, Olaf-Michael, all,
>
>> [13:26] <daveL> arle: for quality estimation with lucia specia
>> this is definitely an assessment of the translation
>> [13:26] <daveL> dave: in this case would it be the same of
>> LQI conformance type
> (BTW: the LQI type is 'non-conformance'). I could see some link with what QuEst does. But, to me, LQI has to do with marking out
> problems.
>
> In this use case I have an MT candidate, I run some process on it and get a value that tells me how close the candidate seems to be
> from a translation that is deemed ok by the given system. In real life I would, for example, use that value to possibly weed out
> some MT candidates, or sort them, before they go to a translator.
>
> Providing an assessment of the translation quality seems to be exactly what MT confidence is suppose to be doing, with the exception
> (currently) that this is to be done by the same MT system that generated the translation.
>
> My question then: does the current MT confidence a duplicate of the LQI/non-conformance? I think not.
>
> And I think--regardless of the merit of QuEst for this--a small change saying that MT confidence is not necessarily generated by the
> same tool that created the MT candidate would make sense.
>
> Cheers,
> -ys
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 08:31:06 UTC