Benchmarking LLMs Against Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels

IF 8.1 3区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
IEEE Transactions on Big Data Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-15 DOI:10.1109/TBDATA.2025.3644594
Jianhao Yan;Pingchuan Yan;Yulong Chen;Jing Li;Xianchao Zhu;Yue Zhang
{"title":"Benchmarking LLMs Against Human Translators: A Comprehensive Evaluation Across Languages, Domains, and Expertise Levels","authors":"Jianhao Yan;Pingchuan Yan;Yulong Chen;Jing Li;Xianchao Zhu;Yue Zhang","doi":"10.1109/TBDATA.2025.3644594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the translation capabilities of existing LLMs, such as GPT-4, ALMA-R, and Deepseek-R1, compared to human translators of varying expertise levels. Through systematic human evaluation using the MQM schema, we assess translations across three language pairs (Chinese <inline-formula><tex-math>$\\longleftrightarrow$</tex-math></inline-formula> English, Russian <inline-formula><tex-math>$\\longleftrightarrow$</tex-math></inline-formula> English, and Chinese <inline-formula><tex-math>$\\longleftrightarrow$</tex-math></inline-formula> Hindi) and three domains (News, Technology, and Biomedical). Our findings reveal that LLMs achieve performance comparable to junior-level translators in terms of total errors, while still lagging behind senior translators. Unlike traditional Neural Machine Translation systems, which show significant performance degradation in resource-poor language directions, LLMs like GPT-4 maintain consistent translation quality across all evaluated language pairs. Through qualitative analysis, we identify distinctive patterns in translation approaches: GPT-4 tends toward overly literal translations and exhibits lexical inconsistency, while human translators sometimes over-interpret context and introduce hallucinations. This study presents a systematic comparison between LLMs and human translators across different proficiency levels, providing valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLM-based translation systems.","PeriodicalId":13106,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Big Data","volume":"12 3","pages":"801-813"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Big Data","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11300973/","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the translation capabilities of existing LLMs, such as GPT-4, ALMA-R, and Deepseek-R1, compared to human translators of varying expertise levels. Through systematic human evaluation using the MQM schema, we assess translations across three language pairs (Chinese $\longleftrightarrow$ English, Russian $\longleftrightarrow$ English, and Chinese $\longleftrightarrow$ Hindi) and three domains (News, Technology, and Biomedical). Our findings reveal that LLMs achieve performance comparable to junior-level translators in terms of total errors, while still lagging behind senior translators. Unlike traditional Neural Machine Translation systems, which show significant performance degradation in resource-poor language directions, LLMs like GPT-4 maintain consistent translation quality across all evaluated language pairs. Through qualitative analysis, we identify distinctive patterns in translation approaches: GPT-4 tends toward overly literal translations and exhibits lexical inconsistency, while human translators sometimes over-interpret context and introduce hallucinations. This study presents a systematic comparison between LLMs and human translators across different proficiency levels, providing valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLM-based translation systems.
对人类翻译的基准法学硕士:跨语言,领域和专业水平的综合评估
本研究对现有llm(如GPT-4、ALMA-R和Deepseek-R1)的翻译能力进行了全面评估,并与不同专业水平的人类翻译人员进行了比较。通过使用MQM模式进行系统的人工评估,我们评估了三种语言对(中文$\ longleftrightrow $ English、俄语$\ longleftrightrow $ English和中文$\ longleftrightrow $ Hindi)和三个领域(新闻、技术和生物医学)的翻译。我们的研究结果表明,法学硕士在总错误方面的表现与初级翻译相当,但仍落后于高级翻译。传统的神经机器翻译系统在资源贫乏的语言方向上表现出显著的性能下降,与之不同的是,像GPT-4这样的llm在所有被评估的语言对中保持一致的翻译质量。通过定性分析,我们发现了翻译方法的独特模式:GPT-4倾向于过度字面翻译,表现出词汇不一致,而人类译者有时会过度解释上下文并引入幻觉。本研究对不同熟练程度的法学硕士和人工翻译进行了系统的比较,为当前基于法学硕士的翻译系统的能力和局限性提供了有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: The IEEE Transactions on Big Data publishes peer-reviewed articles focusing on big data. These articles present innovative research ideas and application results across disciplines, including novel theories, algorithms, and applications. Research areas cover a wide range, such as big data analytics, visualization, curation, management, semantics, infrastructure, standards, performance analysis, intelligence extraction, scientific discovery, security, privacy, and legal issues specific to big data. The journal also prioritizes applications of big data in fields generating massive datasets.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书