BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation

Papineni et al., 2002, BLEU (Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of ACL)

Subscriber deck — free during early access

2 cards in “2.2.1 The trouble with recall” · whole deck

2.2.1 The trouble with recall

  1. Why doesn’t BLEU use recall to penalize short translations?
    With multiple references, a good translation uses only one of the possible word choices; recalling all of them makes it worse: “I always invariably perpetually do.” recalls more reference words than “I always do.” but is a poorer translation.
    • Papineni et al., 2002, BLEU (Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of ACL), §2.2.1
  2. Why is modified precision alone not enough to enforce proper length?
    A very short candidate like “of the” gets inflated precision (unigram 2/2, bigram 1/1) against long references; precision already penalizes overly long candidates, but nothing penalizes overly short ones.
    • Papineni et al., 2002, BLEU (Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of ACL), §2.2.1

Source

  • Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 311–318. https://aclanthology.org/P02-1040/