Automatic metrics are commonly used as the exclusive tool for declaring the superiority of one machine translation system's quality over another. The community choice of automatic metric guides research directions and industrial developments by decid
ing which models are deemed better. Evaluating metrics correlations with sets of human judgements has been limited by the size of these sets. In this paper, we corroborate how reliable metrics are in contrast to human judgements on -- to the best of our knowledge -- the largest collection of judgements reported in the literature. Arguably, pairwise rankings of two systems are the most common evaluation tasks in research or deployment scenarios. Taking human judgement as a gold standard, we investigate which metrics have the highest accuracy in predicting translation quality rankings for such system pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the performance of various metrics across different language pairs and domains. Lastly, we show that the sole use of BLEU impeded the development of improved models leading to bad deployment decisions. We release the collection of 2.3M sentence-level human judgements for 4380 systems for further analysis and replication of our work.
The current approach to collecting human judgments of machine translation quality for the news translation task at WMT -- segment rating with document context -- is the most recent in a sequence of changes to WMT human annotation protocol. As these a
nnotation protocols have changed over time, they have drifted away from some of the initial statistical assumptions underpinning them, with consequences that call the validity of WMT news task system rankings into question. In simulations based on real data, we show that the rankings can be influenced by the presence of outliers (high- or low-quality systems), resulting in different system rankings and clusterings. We also examine questions of annotation task composition and how ease or difficulty of translating different documents may influence system rankings. We provide discussion of ways to analyze these issues when considering future changes to annotation protocols.
