Generative large language models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency across several NLP tasks, such as machine translation, text summarization. Recent research (Kocmi and Federmann, 2023) has shown that utilizing LLMs for assessing the quality of machine translation (MT) achieves state-of-the-art performance at the system level but performs poorly at the segment level. To further improve the performance of LLMs on MT quality assessment, we conduct an investigation into several prompting designs, and propose a new prompting method called Error Analysis Prompting (EAPrompt) by combining Chain-of-Thoughts (Wei et al., 2022) and Error Analysis (Lu et al., 2023). This technique emulates the commonly accepted human evaluation framework - Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM, Freitag et al., (2021)) and produces explainable and reliable MT evaluations at both the system and segment level. Experimental Results from WMT22 metrics shared task validate the effectiveness of EAPrompt on various LLMs, with different structures. Further analysis confirms that EAPrompt effectively distinguishes major errors from minor ones, while also sharing a similar distribution of the number of errors with MQM. These findings highlight the potential of EAPrompt as a human-like evaluator prompting technique for MT evaluation. We will release our code and scripts to facilitate the community.

The pretrained language model (PLM) based metrics have been successfully used in evaluating language generation tasks. Recent studies of the human evaluation community show that considering both major errors (e.g. mistranslated tokens) and minor errors (e.g. imperfections in fluency) can produce high-quality judgments. This inspires us to approach the final goal of the automatic metrics (human-like evaluations) by fine-grained error analysis. In this paper, we argue that the ability to estimate sentence confidence is the tip of the iceberg for PLM-based metrics. And it can be used to refine the generated sentence toward higher confidence and more reference-grounded, where the costs of refining and approaching reference are used to determine the major and minor errors, respectively. To this end, we take BARTScore as the testbed and present an innovative solution to marry the unexploited sentence refining capacity of BARTScore and human-like error analysis, where the final score consists of both the evaluations of major and minor errors. Experiments show that our solution consistently and significantly improves BARTScore, and outperforms top-scoring metrics in 19/25 test settings. Analyses demonstrate our method robustly and efficiently approaches human-like evaluations, enjoying better interpretability. Our code and scripts will be publicly released in https://github.com/Coldmist-Lu/ErrorAnalysis_NLGEvaluation.