LECTURE NOTES 32:

Light and full post-editing

Post-editing involves the correction of machine translation output to ensure that it meets a
level of quality negotiated in advance between the client and the post-editor. Light post-editing
aims at making the output simply understandable; full post-editing at making it also stylistically
appropriate. With advances in machine translation full post-editing is becoming an alternative to
manual translation. Practically all computer assisted translation (CAT) tools now support post-
editing of machine translated output.

Studies in the eighties distinguished between degrees of post-editing which, in the context of the
European Commission Translation Service, were first defined as conventional and rapid or full
and rapid. Light and full post-editing seems the wording most used today.

Light post-editing implies minimal intervention by the post-editor, as strictly required to help the
end user make some sense of the text; the expectation is that the client will use it for inbound
purposes only, often when the text is needed urgently, or has a short time span.

Full post-editing involves a greater level of intervention to achieve a degree of quality to be

negotiated between client and post-editor; the expectation is that the outcome will be a text that is
not only understandable but presented in some stylistically appropriate way, so it can be used for
assimilation and even for dissemination, for inbound and for outbound purposes.

At the top end of full post-editing there is the expectation of a level of quality which is
indistinguishable from that of human translation. The assumption, however, has been that it takes
less effort for translators to work directly from the source text than to post-edit the machine
generated version. With advances in machine translation, this may be changing. For some language
pairs and for some tasks, and with engines that have been customised with domain specific good
quality data, some clients are already requesting translators to post-edit instead of translating from
scratch, in the belief that they will attain similar quality at a lower cost.

The light/full classification, developed in the nineties when machine translation still came on a
CD-ROM, may not suit advances in machine translation at the light post-editing end either. For
some language pairs and some tasks, particularly if the source has been pre-edited, raw machine
output may be good enough for gisting purposes without requiring subsequent human intervention.

What is the difference between light and full post-editing?

There are two levels of post-editing: light and full.

Light post-editing covers the revision of the raw machine translation with only a few modifications
required to the machine text to make it understandable for the end user. As far as light post-editing
is concerned, no attempt is made to produce a result comparable to a text written by a human
translator. This type of post-editing is required when the text is needed urgently, or is used for
inbound purposes only.

Full post-editing implies a detailed in-depth revision of the machine translation with the purpose
of producing an “end result which is of a comparable quality to a human translation” (ISO 18587:
2017), so that the text could be used not only for inbound but also for outbound purposes.

Light and Full MT Post-Editing Explained

Considering the intense pressure to maximize corporate localization budget utility and speed
products to foreign markets, it is no surprise that Machine Translation (MT) often comes up in our
business conversations. It is well known that an MT engine can translate more quickly: tens of
thousands of words overnight. Also, there is no doubt that MT can get translation done more
cheaply; with no human intervention, the only cost is that of the engine. However, with no human
touch, the linguistic quality and degree of faithfulness to the source text is suspect at best.

The quality of machine translated content varies, and it depends on many things, including:

• Quality and level of standardization of source material (garbage in, garbage out)
• TM availability, quality and size used to train the engine
• Level of post-editing applied
• Client’s definition of high versus low quality
• Language pair

When MT is in play, it is mission critical to discuss how to achieve the desired level of output
quality. Often, we are asked to provide one of two levels of post-editing: light or full.

Light post-editing

This involves taking the raw MT output and performing as few modifications as possible to the
text in order to make the translation understandable, factually accurate, and grammatically correct.

Light post-editing tasks include:

 • correcting only the most obvious typos, word, and grammatical errors
• rewriting confusing sentences partially or completely
• fixing machine-induced mistakes
• deleting unnecessary or extra translation alternatives generated by the machine
• making key terminology consistent, but with no in-depth term checking

The localized text needs to convey the meaning of the source text concepts correctly. It doesn’t
matter if there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between the source and target texts, as long as the
original concept is there in the translation. Only major errors (errors which impact the user’s ability
to perform the task, comprehend the text correctly, and impair productivity) and critical errors
(errors which may incur legal consequences, block the user’s ability to perform the task at all, or
comprehend the text at all) are covered. The resulting content might sound robotic or just a little
bit off in tone and style, yet it is fluid enough for a reader to understand the meaning. All stylistic
polishing is skipped.

This level of light editing is not easy to achieve: naturally detail-oriented linguists literally have to
force themselves to skip over ‘minor’ errors and limit their work; their job is to achieve the stated
quality level and no more. A light edit has a faster pace than a full edit, and if linguists do more
than a light post-edit, they may not be paid for that extra effort

The key phrases for light post-editing are ‘factual correctness’ and ‘good enough’.

Full post-editing

Full post-editing, a slower and more in-depth pass, must produce absolutely accurate translations
that consistently use correct and approved terminology, have the appropriate tone and style, have
no stylistic inconsistencies and variations, and are free from any grammatical mistakes. After this
edit, the translation should read as if written in the target language.

Full post-editing tasks include all of the light post-editing tasks plus:

• checking terminology against approved terminological resources to make sure it is

consistent and appropriate
• cross-referencing translations against other resources
• making syntactic modifications in accordance with practices for the target language
• producing stylistically consistent, fluent content
• adapting all cultural references, including idioms, examples, etc.
• ensuring perfect faithfulness — a 1-to-1 correspondence — between the source and target
text
• applying correct formatting and tagging
 • correcting ALL grammatical errors, typos, punctuation errors, and spelling mistakes

The expectation is high: full post-edited content must be equal to human translation in all aspects.
Therefore, content must meet the quality criteria defined by the client for human translations.

This is a tall order, especially when all the factors I listed at the beginning of this blog do not line
up perfectly. In some cases, the effort to achieve human level quality from MT output may exceed
the effort to have it translated by a linguist in the first place.

Shades of grey
Is it as simple as choosing one level of post-edit or the other? Unfortunately, no. There are plenty
of clients who define a level of quality that seeks the polish of full post-editing as well as the speed
and low-cost of light post-editing. In order for them to fulfill their quality needs, post-editing
processes, activities, and throughputs must be discussed and defined beforehand.

Last but not least, the effort to achieve ANY level of quality can be very different from project to
project, client to client, language to language. Therefore, quality levels, throughputs, and
expectations must be carefully defined regardless of whether machine translation and post-editing
are part of the translation process.