{"ID":2840803,"CreatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13884","arxiv_id":"2511.13884","title":"Can QE-informed (Re)Translation lead to Error Correction?","abstract":"The paper presents two approaches submitted to the WMT 2025 Automated Translation Quality Evaluation Systems Task 3 - Quality Estimation (QE)-informed Segment-level Error Correction. While jointly training QE systems with Automatic Post-Editing (APE) has shown improved performance for both tasks, APE systems are still known to overcorrect the output of Machine Translation (MT), leading to a degradation in performance. We investigate a simple training-free approach - QE-informed Retranslation, and compare it with another within the same training-free paradigm. Our winning approach selects the highest-quality translation from multiple candidates generated by different LLMs. The second approach, more akin to APE, instructs an LLM to replace error substrings as specified in the provided QE explanation(s). A conditional heuristic was employed to minimise the number of edits, with the aim of maximising the Gain-to-Edit ratio. The two proposed approaches achieved a Delta COMET score of 0.0201 and -0.0108, respectively, leading the first approach to achieve the winning position on the subtask leaderboard.","short_abstract":"The paper presents two approaches submitted to the WMT 2025 Automated Translation Quality Evaluation Systems Task 3 - Quality Estimation (QE)-informed Segment-level Error Correction. While jointly training QE systems with Automatic Post-Editing (APE) has shown improved performance for both tasks, APE systems are still...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13884","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.13884v1","authors":"[\"Govardhan Padmanabhan\"]","published":"2025-11-17T20:10:47Z","proceeding":"cs.CL","tasks":"[\"cs.CL\",\"cs.AI\"]","methods":"[\"Large Language Model\"]","has_code":false}