Marie Escribe, Tharindu Ranasinghe, Amal Haddad Haddad +2cs.CL
Post-Editing (PE) of Machine Translation (MT) output often involves repeating the same lexical and terminological corrections across many segments, especially in specialised and highly repetitive documents. Despite substantial work on Automatic Post-Editing (APE), most available corpora operate at the sentence level, others are synthetic, and overall not designed to study how corrections propagate in realistic Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) workflows. This paper presents the APEX-VW (Automatic Post-Editing eXperiments on Virtual Wards) Corpus, a new open English-Spanish (EN-ES) dataset built from recent NHS virtual-ward documents and professional PE in Trados Studio, with controlled MT, terminology, and quality assurance settings. The corpus contains seven document-coherent source texts totalling 42k words, translated with four MT systems representing different paradigms and then post-edited by professional translators. Unlike prior resources such as WMT APE corpora, eSCAPE, MLQE-PE, or LangMark, the dataset preserves document order and CAT-tool context, making it suitable for research on terminology normalisation, correction propagation, and human-in-the-loop translation support. The paper describes the corpus design, data preparation, PE setup, and initial corpus statistics, and positions the resource as a benchmark for document-level APE and propagation-aware assistive tools.
Joachim Minder, Alexandra Mestivier, Natalie Küblercs.CL
This article aims to evaluate the quality of machine translation (MT) and post-editing (PE) in the context of specialised translation from English into French. Three MT systems (DeepL, eTranslation and Systran) were compared, and two groups of post-editors -linguists/translators and NLP experts -were asked to perform post-editing. Translation assessment is based on error annotation using an error typology adapted to MT and PE evaluation. The results reveal significant differences between the three MT systems and the two groups of post-editors, particularly in terms of terminological accuracy and fluency. This study highlights the importance of domain knowledge in specialised translation, as well as the limitations and variable performance of MT systems in language for specific purposes (LSP).
Drawing on 23 anonymized student pro-jects from a fourth-year Machine Transla-tion and Post-editing course in a BA-level translation programme, this paper exam-ines how structured comparison of gen-eral-purpose LLMs and online MT sys-tems can elicit evaluative judgement in AI-mediated translation. Students translat-ed short specialised English Wikipedia texts into Catalan or Spanish, generated four system outputs, evaluated them using automatic metrics and human adequa-cy/fluency assessment, selected one output for post-editing, and justified their deci-sion in written reports. Descriptive counts are reported for all 23 projects, while qualitative interpretation is based on the 22 cases accompanied by written reports. Results show that students did not treat automatic metrics as final authority: final post-editing selections often diverged from metric rankings and were justified through adequacy, fluency, terminology, naturalness, and expected post-editing ef-fort. The study therefore does not bench-mark systems under controlled conditions; it analyses how students justified system choice within an authentic classroom as-signment.
Antonio Castaldo, Johanna Monti, Sheila Castilhocs.CL cs.AI
This paper investigates whether LLM translations exhibit identifiable emotional profiles and how post-editing reshapes them toward human-like norms. We compare LLM translations of Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake with their post-edited versions and a human translation, using a large-scale corpus of contemporary Italian science-fiction as a baseline. We examine emotion through lexicon-based and multilingual modeling, conducting a fine-grained analysis of emotional variation across systems. We find that MT systems introduce model-specific and statistically significant emotional fingerprints across translations, leading to a limited preservation of an author's voice.
This paper investigates how post-editors of literary texts react and respond to the way metaphors have been translated by Neu ral Machine Translation (NMT) and Large Language Models (LLMs). The results show that one in three metaphors in the output were changed by the post-editors, demonstrating that the translation of fig urative language is indeed problematic in literary MT (LitMT). The responses indi cate that the post-editors were aware of overly literal translations, though mostly for multiword expressions. Moreover, at times they found it difficult to determine whether solutions were acceptable. They rated the overall quality of the MT out put as quite poor and stated that the post editing was more work and more effort than it would have been translating from scratch. This supports previous studies ar guing that post-editing constrains transla tors in their creativity and diminishes their sense of text ownership.
Fleur V. J. van Tellingen, Gautam Ranka, Dora Žugčić +4cs.CL
As MT quality increases, interest in enhanced post-editing features such as QE-derived error highlights is growing, yet evidence for their usefulness remains limited. In this work, we explore the usefulness of LLM-derived error highlights and correction suggestions based on automatic post-editing (APE). We conduct a study where professional translators (En-Nl) post-edit translations using APE error highlights and correction suggestions and compare productivity, quality and user experience to regular PE and PE with QE-derived highlights. While no condition yielded productivity or quality gains compared to regular PE, APE highlights were better received than QE-derived highlights, and correction suggestions improved overall user experience.
Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.