Bill Ray

dblp:09/382 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Machine translation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Machine translation › computer-assisted translation
automatic post-editing
0.612022
Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature · EMNLP 2022
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
document-level machine translation
0.612022
Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature · EMNLP 2022
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
machine translation evaluation
0.612022
Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature · EMNLP 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

post-editing model · 0.6automatic MT metrics · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature
abstract
Literary translation is a culturally significant task, but it is bottlenecked by the small number of qualified literary translators relative to the many untranslated works published around the world.Machine translation (MT) holds potential to complement the work of human translators by improving both training procedures and their overall efficiency.Literary translation is less constrained than more traditional MT settings since translators must balance meaning equivalence, readability, and critical interpretability in the target language.This property, along with the complex discourse-level context present in literary texts, also makes literary MT more challenging to computationally model and evaluate.To explore this task, we collect a dataset (PAR3) of non-English language novels in the public domain, each aligned at the paragraph level to both human and automatic English translations.Using PAR3, we discover that expert literary translators prefer reference human translations over machinetranslated paragraphs at a rate of 84%, while state-of-the-art automatic MT metrics do not correlate with those preferences.The experts note that MT outputs contain not only mistranslations, but also discourse-disrupting errors and stylistic inconsistencies.To address these problems, we train a post-editing model whose output is preferred over normal MT output at a rate of 69% by experts.We publicly release PAR3 to spur future research into literary MT. 1
Katherine Thai, Marzena Karpinska, Kalpesh Krishna, Bill Ray, Moira Inghilleri, John Wieting, Mohit Iyyer
EMNLP4