Abstract
Analytic Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE), based on Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), traditionally uses a linear error-to-penalty scale calibrated to a reference sample of 1000-2000 words. However, linear extrapolation biases judgment on samples of different sizes, over-penalizing short samples and under-penalizing long ones, producing misalignment with expert intuition. Building on the Multi-Range framework, this paper presents a calibrated, non-linear scoring model that better reflects how human content consumers perceive translation quality across samples of varying length. Empirical data from three large-scale enterprise environments shows that acceptable error counts grow logarithmically, not linearly, with sample size. Psychophysical and cognitive evidence, including the Weber-Fechner law and Cognitive Load Theory, supports this premise by explaining why the perceptual impact of additional errors diminishes while the cognitive burden grows with scale. We propose a two-parameter model E(x) = a * ln(1 + b * x), a, b > 0, anchored to a reference tolerance and calibrated from two tolerance points using a one-dimensional root-finding step. The model yields an explicit interval within which the linear approximation stays within +/-20 percent relative error and integrates into existing evaluation workflows with only a dynamic tolerance function added. The approach improves interpretability, fairness, and inter-rater reliability across both human and AI-generated translations. By operationalizing a perceptually valid scoring paradigm, it advances translation quality evaluation toward more accurate and scalable assessment. The model also provides a stronger basis for AI-based document-level evaluation aligned with human judgment. Implementation considerations for CAT/LQA systems and implications for human and AI-generated text evaluation are discussed.
Connections
Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.
Building this map preview
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Reviews 0
Write a review
No reviews yet.
Discussion 0
Add a comment
No comments yet.