Abstract

Existing evaluation metrics for machine translation lack crucial robustness: their correlations with human quality judgments vary considerably across languages and genres. We believe that the main reason is their inability to properly capture meaning: A good translation candidate means the same thing as the reference translation, regardless of formulation. We propose a metric that evaluates MT output based on a rich set of features motivated by textual entailment, such as lexical-semantic (in-)compatibility and argument structure overlap. We compare this metric against a combination metric of four state-of-theart scores (BLEU, NIST, TER, and METEOR) in two different settings. The combination metric outperforms the individual scores, but is bested by the entailment-based metric. Combining the entailment and traditional features yields further improvements.