Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces an inference-time diagnostic for Automatic Post-Editing in low-resource languages, distinguishing between models that benefit from training versus those hindered by inconsistent data without requiring retraining. By analyzing Translation Edit Rate curves under varying edit-distance penalties, the study identifies specific failure modes like "Binary Collapse" and "Confident Miscalibration," offering practitioners a concrete method to optimize post-editing strategies immediately.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Confident but Wrong: A Constrained Decoding Diagnostic for Low-Resource Automatic Post-Editing

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.29680v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic Post-Editing (APE) for low-resource languages (LRLs) often fails to improve Machine Translation (MT), and the score alone cannot say why: whether more training would help, or whether the training data is too inconsistent to learn from. We introduce a black-box, inference-time diagnostic that tells these two cases apart without retraining or annotation. It varies an edit-distance penalty $\lambda$ that drives the model from free editing towards copying the MT, and reads two signals: (1) the shape of the Translation Edit Rate (TER)-vs-$\lambda$ curve, U-shaped if edits from the model reduce error and monotonically decreasing if none does; and (2) the ordering of constraint variants that trust model confidence to increasing degrees, which shows whether confidence tracks edit quality. Across decoder-only and encoder-decoder models on English-Sinhala, the diagnostic exposes two failure modes consistent with a heterogeneous post-edit signal as the underlying cause: Binary Collapse, where the model copies the MT or makes off-target edits, and Confident Miscalibration, where the confidence signals we test do not separate useful edits from unnecessary ones. The pattern holds on English-Marathi and English-Tamil, with the failure modes tracking the post-edit distribution rather than MT quality or language family. Beyond diagnosis, the curve shape prescribes a concrete next step for practitioners; in the favorable case, a static constraint yields a free inference-time accuracy gain. We release the first English-Sinhala (~66k) and a new English-Tamil (~39k) APE datasets with all code.

Abstract:Automatic Post-Editing (APE) for low-resource languages (LRLs) often fails to improve Machine Translation (MT), and the score alone cannot say why: whether more training would help, or whether the training data is too inconsistent to learn from. We introduce a black-box, inference-time diagnostic that tells these two cases apart without retraining or annotation. It varies an edit-distance penalty $\lambda$ that drives the model from free editing towards copying the MT, and reads two signals: (1) the shape of the Translation Edit Rate (TER)-vs-$\lambda$ curve, U-shaped if edits from the model reduce error and monotonically decreasing if none does; and (2) the ordering of constraint variants that trust model confidence to increasing degrees, which shows whether confidence tracks edit quality. Across decoder-only and encoder-decoder models on English-Sinhala, the diagnostic exposes two failure modes consistent with a heterogeneous post-edit signal as the underlying cause: Binary Collapse, where the model copies the MT or makes off-target edits, and Confident Miscalibration, where the confidence signals we test do not separate useful edits from unnecessary ones. The pattern holds on English-Marathi and English-Tamil, with the failure modes tracking the post-edit distribution rather than MT quality or language family. Beyond diagnosis, the curve shape prescribes a concrete next step for practitioners; in the favorable case, a static constraint yields a free inference-time accuracy gain. We release the first English-Sinhala (~66k) and a new English-Tamil (~39k) APE datasets with all code.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.29680 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.29680v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.29680 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 329 words

Related coverage