Cover not available

Article In: Translation Spaces: Online-First Articles

Can AI revise translations?

A tentative answer based on a survey and a pilot experiment

ORCiD logo with link | University of Geneva | University of Antwerp
ORCiD logo with link | York University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform a great number of linguistic tasks, including drafting, summarising and rephrasing. But can LLMs revise? To help answer this question, we distributed a survey to revisers (N = 169) and conducted a pilot experiment with ChatGPT (GPT-4). The survey showed that most of the translators who took part in the study do not use LLMs for revision, mostly because they never considered it or due to a workplace decision. Revisers who do use them think that overall, the quality is quite good. Under the conditions of the experiment we conducted, ChatGPT enhanced the quality of the translation, but made many unnecessary changes. Together, the two parts of the study highlight that LLMs can be useful for revisers, for example by providing inspiration, but they cannot revise translations to professional standards, at least based on the opinions expressed in the survey.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Survey results
    • 3.2Experiment results
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Aldosari, Lama Abdullah, and Nasrin Altuwairesh. 2025. “Assessing the effects of translation prompts on the translation quality of GPT-4 Turbo using automated and human evaluation metrics: a case study.” Perspectives: online first. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allman, Spencer. 2008. “Negotiating Translation Revision Assignments.” In Translation and Negotiation. Proceedings of the Conference held on 10th November 2007 in Portsmouth, edited by Ian Kemble, 35–47. University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arthern, Peter J. 1983. “Judging the Quality of Revision.” Lebende Sprachen 28 (2): 53–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castaldo, Antonio, and Johanna Monti. 2024. “Prompting Large Language Models for Idiomatic Translation.” In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Creative-text Translation and Technology, edited by Bram Vanroy, Marie-Aude Lefer, Lieve Macken and Paola Ruffo, 32–39. Accessed December 8, 2025. [URL] European Association for Machine Translation.
Ciobanu, Dragoş, Valentina Ragni, and Alina Secară. 2019. “Speech Synthesis in the Translation Revision Process: Evidence from Error Analysis, Questionnaire, and Eye-Tracking.” Informatics 6 (4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daems, Joke, and Lieve Macken. 2021. “Post-editing human translations and revising machine translations: impact on efficiency and quality.” In Translation Revision and Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes, edited by Maarit Koponen, Brian Mossop, Isabelle S. Robert and Giovanna Scocchera, 50–70. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
do Carmo, Félix, and Joss Moorkens. 2021. “Differentiating editing, post-editing, and revision.” In Translation revision and post-editing: industry practices and cognitive processes, edited by Maarit Koponen, Brian Mossop, Isabelle S. Robert and Giovanna Scocchera, 35–49. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorer, Brita, Anna Kuznik, David Orrego Carmona, and Cornelia Zwischenberger. 2025. “Surveys and Interviews.” In Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Ana María Rojo López, 69–91. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drugan, Joanna. 2013. Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ELIS. 2025. European language industry survey 2025: Trends, expectations and concerns of the European language industry. Accessed December 8, 2025 [URL]
Fields, Paul, Daryl Hague, Geoffrey S. Koby, Arle Lommel, and Alan Melby. 2014. “What Is Quality? A Management Discipline and the Translation Industry Get Acquainted.” Revista Tradumàtica 12: 404–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde. 2008. “The speck in your brother’s eye — the beam in your own: Quality management in translation and revision.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, edited by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 255–280. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Sui. 2024. “Prompting ChatGPT for Translation: A Comparative Analysis of Translation Brief and Persona Prompts.” In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (Volume 1), edited by Carolina Scarton, Charlotte Prescott, Chris Bayliss, Chris Oakley, Joanna Wright, Stuart Wrigley, Xingyi Song, Edward Gow-Smith, Rachel Bawden, Víctor M. Sánchez-Cartagena, Patrick Cadwell, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, Vera Cabarrão, Konstantinos Chatzitheodorou, Mary Nurminen, Diptesh Kanojia and Helena Moniz, 316–326. Accessed December 8, 2025. [URL]. European Association for Machine Translation.
Hendy, Amr, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. “How good are GPT models at machine translation? A comprehensive evaluation.” Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiao, Wenxiang, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. “Is ChatGPT A Good Translator? Yes With GPT-4 As The Engine.” Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2024. “Exploring professional translators’ attitudes towards control and autonomy in the human-centred AI era: quantitative results from a survey study.” Revista Tradumàtica 22: 276–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelley, Kate, Belinda Clark, Vivienne Brown, and John Sitzia. 2003. “Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15 (3): 261–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander. 2006. “Die Loyalitätsbeziehungen der Übersetzungsrevisorin [Loyalty in the relationships of the translation reviser].” In Übersetzen — Translating — Traduire: Towards a ‘Social Turn’?, edited by Michaela Wolf, 89–98. LIT Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007a. “The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 42–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Translation revision: A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier, Miriam Schlesinger and Radegundis Stolze, 115–126. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macken, Lieve. 2024. “Machine Translation Meets Large Language Models: Evaluating ChatGPT’s Ability to Automatically Post-Edit Literary Texts.” In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Creative-text Translation and Technology, edited by Bram Vanroy, Marie-Aude Lefer, Lieve Macken and Paola Ruffo, 65–81. Accessed December 8, 2025. [URL]. European Association for Machine Translation.
Moorkens, Joss, Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, and Stephen Doherty, eds. 2018. Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moorkens, Joss, Andy Way, and Séamus Lankford. 2025. Automating Translation. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2026. Revising and Editing for Translators. 5th ed. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nitzke, Jean, and Anne-Kathrin Gros. 2021. “Preferential changes in revision and post-editing.” In Translation Revision and Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes, edited by Maarit Koponen, Brian Mossop, Isabelle S. Robert and Giovanna Scocchera, 21–34. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penet, J. C., Joss Moorkens, and Masaru Yamada, eds. 2026. Teaching Translation in the Age of Generative AI: New Paradigm, New Learning? Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando, and Diego Guzmán. 2024. “The impact of specialised translator training and professional experience on legal translation quality assurance: an empirical study of revision performance.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18 (2): 313–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch, and Anne Schjoldager. 2011. “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 15: 87–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raunak, Vikas, Amr Sharaf, Yiren Wang, Hany Awadalla, and Arul Menezes. 2023. “Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editing.” In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, edited by Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino and Kalika Bali, 12009–12024. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riondel, Aurélien. 2026a. La révision des traductions: une approche sociale. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2026c. “Why is the quality of revision so low? Attempts to explain and tackle the situation.” Perspectives 34 (3): 631–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivas Ginel, María Isabel, and Joss Moorkens. 2024. “A year of ChatGPT: translators’ attitudes and degree of adoption.” Revista Tradumàtica 22: 258–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. “Translators’ trust and distrust in the times of GenAI.” Translation Studies 18 (2): 283–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S. 2012. La révision en traduction : les procédures de révision et leur impact sur le produit et le processus de révision [Translation revision: Revision procedures and their impact on the revision product and process]. Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., and Aline Remael. 2016. “Quality Control in the Subtitling Industry: An Exploratory Survey Study.” Meta 61 (3): 578–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., Aline Remael, and Jim J. J. Ureel. 2017. “Towards a model of translation revision competence.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11 (1): 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., Iris Schrijver, and Jim J. J. Ureel. 2024. “Measuring translation revision competence and post-editing competence in translation trainees: methodological issues.” Perspectives 32 (2): 177–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scarpa, Federica. 2020. Research and Professional Practice in Specialised Translation. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke, Anke Tardel, Katharina Oster, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2019. “Eye-tracking revision processes of translation students and professional translators.” Perspectives 27 (4): 589–603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singh, Anushka, Aarya Pakhale, Mitesh M. Khapra, and Raj Dabre. 2025. “Quality Estimation and Post-Editing Using LLMs For Indic Languages: How Good Is It.” In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XX: Volume 1, edited by Pierrette Bouillon, Johanna Gerlach, Sabrina Girletti, Lise Volkart, Raphael Rubino, Rico Sennrich, Ana C. Farinha, Marco Gaido, Joke Daems, Dorothy Kenny, Helena Moniz and Sara Szoc, 388–398. Accessed December 8, 2025. [URL]. European Association for Machine Translation.
Strandvik, Ingemar. 2025. “Translation quality and the role of specifications — How standards can help the translation sector today.” Across Languages and Cultures 26 (S): 5–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun. 2016. “Survey-based studies.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, edited by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 269–279. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valdez, Susana, and Sonia Vandepitte. 2021. “Exploring a two-way street: Revisers’ and translators’ attitudes and expectations about each other in biomedical translation.” In Translation Revision and Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes, edited by Maarit Koponen, Brian Mossop, Isabelle S. Robert and Giovanna Scocchera, 148–164. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Onno Kosters, and Christophe Declercq. 2024. ““Can make mistakes”: Prompting ChatGPT to Enhance Literary MT output.” In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Creative-text Translation and Technology, edited by Bram Vanroy, Marie-Aude Lefer, Lieve Macken and Paola Ruffo, 10–20. Accessed December 8, 2025. [URL]. European Association for Machine Translation.
van Rensburg, Alta. 2017. “Developing assessment instruments: The effect of a reviser’s profile on the quality of the revision product.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 16: 71–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Longyue, Chenyang Lyu, Tianbo Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Dian Yu, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. “Document-Level Machine Translation with Large Language Models.” In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, edited by Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino and Kalika Bali, 16646–16661. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Di, Seth Aycock, and Christof Monz. 2025. “Please Translate Again: Two Simple Experiments on Whether Human-Like Reasoning Helps Translation.” In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, edited by Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose and Violet Peng, 20435–20451. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamada, Masaru. 2023. “Optimizing Machine Translation through Prompt Engineering: An Investigation into ChatGPT’s Customizability.” In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XIX, Vol. 2: Users Track, edited by Masaru Yamada and Felix do Carmo, 195–204. Asia-Pacific Association for Machine Translation. [URL]
. 2026a. “Generative AI in Revision Workflows.” In Revising and Editing for Translators. 5th ed., edited by Brian Mossop, 228–238. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2026b. “Teaching translation with AI: Bridging theory and practice through prompt engineering.” In Teaching Translation in the Age of Generative AI: New Paradigm, New Learning?, edited by J. C. Penet, Joss Moorkens and Masaru Yamada, 87–104. Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue