Title: On Non-interactive Evaluation of Animal Communication Translators
Primary area: other topics in machine learning (i.e., none of the above)
Keywords: Machine translation, Reference-free evaluation, Semantic Order, Low-resource learning, Active learning theory, Animal communication

Abstract: If you had an AI Whale-to-English translator, how could you validate whether or not it is working?
Does one need to interact with the animals or rely on grounded observations such as temperature? We provide theoretical and proof-of-concept experimental evidence suggesting that interaction and even observations may not be necessary for sufficiently complex languages. One may be able to evaluate translators solely by their English outputs, offering potential advantages in terms of safety, ethics, and cost. This is an instance of machine translation quality evaluation (MTQE) without any reference translations available. A key challenge is identifying "hallucinations," false translations which may appear fluent and plausible. We propose using segment-by-segment translation together with the classic NLP shuffle test to evaluate translators. The idea is to translate animal communication, turn by turn, and evaluate how often the resulting translations make more sense in order than permuted. Proof-of-concept experiments on data-scarce human languages and constructed languages demonstrate the potential utility of this evaluation methodology. These human-language experiments serve solely to validate our reference-free metric under data scarcity.
It is found to correlate highly with a standard evaluation based on reference translations, which are available in our experiments. We also perform a theoretical analysis suggesting that interaction may not be necessary nor efficient in the early stages of learning to translate.

TL;DR: If you had an AI Whale-to-English translator, how could you validate whether or not it is working?