Human evaluation is a critical component in machine translation system development and has received much attention in text translation research. However, little prior work exists on the topic of human evaluation for speech translation, which adds additional challenges such as noisy data and segmentation mismatches. We take the first steps to fill this gap by conducting a comprehensive human evaluation of the results of several shared tasks from the last International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2023). We propose an effective evaluation strategy based on automatic resegmentation and direct assessment with segment context. Our analysis revealed that: 1) the proposed evaluation strategy is robust and scores well-correlated with other types of human judgements; 2) automatic metrics are usually, but not always, well-correlated with direct assessment scores; and 3) COMET as a slightly stronger automatic metric than chrF, despite the segmentation noise introduced by the resegmentation step systems. We release the collected human-annotated data in order to encourage further investigation.

Many NLP tasks require to automatically identify the most significant words in a text. In this work, we derive word significance from models trained to solve semantic task: Natural Language Inference and Paraphrase Identification. Using an attribution method aimed to explain the predictions of these models, we derive importance scores for each input token. We evaluate their relevance using a so-called cross-task evaluation: Analyzing the performance of one model on an input masked according to the other model’s weight, we show that our method is robust with respect to the choice of the initial task. Additionally, we investigate the scores from the syntax point of view and observe interesting patterns, e.g. words closer to the root of a syntactic tree receive higher importance scores. Altogether, these observations suggest that our method can be used to identify important words in sentences without any explicit word importance labeling in training.

This paper reports on the shared tasks organized by the 20th IWSLT Conference. The shared tasks address 9 scientific challenges in spoken language translation: simultaneous and offline translation, automatic subtitling and dubbing, speech-to-speech translation, multilingual, dialect and low-resource speech translation, and formality control. The shared tasks attracted a total of 38 submissions by 31 teams. The growing interest towards spoken language translation is also witnessed by the constantly increasing number of shared task organizers and contributors to the overview paper, almost evenly distributed across industry and academia.

Simultaneous speech translation (SST) can be evaluated on simulated online events where human evaluators watch subtitled videos and continuously express their satisfaction by pressing buttons (so called Continuous Rating). Continuous Rating is easy to collect, but little is known about its reliability, or relation to comprehension of foreign language document by SST users. In this paper, we contrast Continuous Rating with factual questionnaires on judges with different levels of source language knowledge. Our results show that Continuous Rating is easy and reliable SST quality assessment if the judges have at least limited knowledge of the source language. Our study indicates users’ preferences on subtitle layout and presentation style and, most importantly, provides a significant evidence that users with advanced source language knowledge prefer low latency over fewer re-translations.

The evaluation campaign of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation featured eight shared tasks: (i) Simultaneous speech translation, (ii) Offline speech translation, (iii) Speech to speech translation, (iv) Low-resource speech translation, (v) Multilingual speech translation, (vi) Dialect speech translation, (vii) Formality control for speech translation, (viii) Isometric speech translation. A total of 27 teams participated in at least one of the shared tasks. This paper details, for each shared task, the purpose of the task, the data that were released, the evaluation metrics that were applied, the submissions that were received and the results that were achieved.