Common use of Comparative Evaluation Clause in Contracts

Comparative Evaluation. In order to have an impression how the result is compared to the state of the art, the test sentences were translated with several available MT systems, to have an impression how useful they would be. The systems selected for comparison were one SMT and four RMT systems. The test sentences were translated, and the translations for the test words were identified and compared to the reference translation. Like for the absolute evaluation, total (rank1) and partial (rank2) identity were computed, as well as the overall scores. Tab. 5-1 shows the evaluation result. It can be seen that the LT-Xfr system clearly shows the best performance of all systems in all categories. It has much better scores than all RMT systems, and also better scores than Google. It is absolute 20% better than the least-performing MT system, and still 7% better than the best-performing one. Even the fallback frequency-based (LT-Xfr-freq) version outperforms all RMT systems, and is better than Google in three of six categories (Verbs1, Verbs/1+2, Adj/1+2). 5-1: Evaluation results, compared to the reference. Number sentences, ranks (sentences, percentage), per part of speech, total, and score, for all systems.