Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates reader preferences between human translations (HT) and machine translations (MT) of literary texts, utilizing a sample of 15 novels translated from French, Polish, and Japanese into English. While readers rated MT as "fine," they showed a clear preference for HT, especially in terms of clarity and immersive experience, with 522 out of 772 chunk comparisons favoring HT. Notably, readers struggled to distinguish between the two translation types, indicating that MT can achieve a level of fluency that may mask its shortcomings in literary effect, as revealed by the inadequacy of traditional automatic metrics in capturing reader preferences.
Readers find AI-generated translations "fine," but overwhelmingly prefer human translations for their clarity and immersive quality, despite being unable to reliably distinguish between the two.
AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers experience it in terms of immersiveness and literary effect, aspects poorly captured by automatic machine translation metrics or human evaluation targeting fluency and adequacy. We ask 15 avid readers to compare recently published human translations (HT) to machine translations (MT) generated with an agentic large language model (LLM)-based pipeline, for 15 recent novels in French, Polish, and Japanese and translated into English. Readers evaluated approximately 8K-word excerpts in two conditions: immersive reading of the whole excerpt (30 comparisons) and close reading of 386 aligned HT-MT chunk pairs (772 comparisons), with two readers per book and in alternating order of presentation. Overall, readers find MT"fine", but prefer HT (slightly at excerpt-level 19/30, more clearly at chunk-level 522/772) for its ease, clarity, and immersive nature. Readers'highlights show that MT's quality varies more within one book than HT's does. Crucially, readers cannot reliably tell the two apart (17/30 guess correctly) and tend to prefer the version they believe to be human. Automatic metrics, including LLM-as-a-judge approaches, fail to recover reader preferences and favor MT. We release LAIT (Literary AI Translation), a reader-centered evaluation dataset with 1K reader comments, 2K judgments and preference ratings, and 7.2K span-level annotations, along with our evaluation protocol and supporting interface.
Microsoft Research