Ideosphere Forum
From Sat Jan 20 09:17:50 2018
Received: from (localhost [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w0KEHooI001260
	for <>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:17:50 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w0KEHo92001259
	for fx-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:17:50 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w0KEHmXp001251
	for <>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:17:49 -0500
Received: from [] (
	by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
	(envelope-from <>)
	id 1ectxs-0008Qb-0j
	for; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:17:48 +0100
Received: from ([])
	by with bizsmtp
	id 0eHn1x0023Halsk01eHnso; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:17:47 +0100
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:17:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: "chrisran.bma e-mail" <>
To: fx-discuss <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Subject: fx-discuss: =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd:_FX_Claim:_Tran_=E2=80=93_Machine_translation_by_2015?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.6.2-Rev60
X-Originating-Client: com.openexchange.ox.gui.dhtml
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;
	s=meg.feb2017; t=1516457868;
Precedence: bulk


The due date for this claim 2017/12/31 has passed.

Does anyone think or preferably have evidence to suggest this claim is true or

Is the judge, Neal Gafter aka loophole still around?

I have previously written things like:

Findings of the 2017 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT17)

(September 7-8, 2017)


Findings of the 2016 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT16)

(11-12 August 2016)

Perhaps the following looks like what we want:


5.5.2 Human evaluation results

Table 35 includes DA results for English-German and Table 36 shows results for
German-English APE systems. Clusters are identified by grouping systems together
according to which systems significantly outperform all others in lower ranking
clusters, according to Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

# Ave % Ave z System


− 84.8 0.520 HUMAN POST EDIT


1 78.2 0.261 AMU

   77.9 0.261 FBK

   76.8 0.221 DCU


4 73.8 0.115 JXNU


5 71.9 0.038 USAAR

   71.1 0.014 CUNI

   70.2 −0.020 LIG


− 68.6 −0.083 NO POST EDIT

Table 35: EN-DE DA Human evaluation results showing average raw DA scores (Ave
%) and average standardized scores (Ave z), lines between systems indicate
clusters according to Wilcoxon rank-sum test at p-level p ≤ 0.05.


Seems to indicate that human translation is better than machine translation, but
of course that doesn't guarantee that there isn't a better translation program
somewhere from pre 31 Dec 2015 that simply didn't attend the conference.

Still if human level translation existed in 2015, you would not expect to read
things like


This steady improvement has been mainly driven by the massive migration to the
neural approach, which in 2016 allowed the winning system to achieve impressive


I don't believe there is a program that can justifiably claim "equal or better
average quality, as professional human translations" but proving a negative is
difficult. I suggest if there was such a program it would be big news, not
difficult to find, and conference findings would be markedly different to those
linked above.

Not sure how much more a judge might want before deciding how to judge the
claim. Are there any more authoritative events or other event before claim
deadline of 31 Dec 2017? (Note program has to exist by 31 Dec 2015 and
translations have to 'be of comparable cost and turnaround time'.)

The comparable cost and turnaround time requirement seems to me to indicate that
secret research would not qualify.

Seems like an obvious false to me.


Chris Randles

(crandles 7886)

Disclosure I hold -3603 in this claim

Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL