English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

MT evaluation metrics are tested for correlation with human judgments either at the sentence- or the corpus-level. Trained metrics ignore corpus-level judgments and are trained for high sentence-level correlation only. We show that training only for one objective (sentence or corpus level), can not only harm the performance on the other objective, but it can also be suboptimal for the objective being optimized. To this end we present a metric trained for corpus-level and show empirical comparison against a metric trained for sentence-level exemplifying how their performance may vary per language pair, type and level of judgment. Subsequently we propose a model trained to optimize both objectives simultaneously and show that it is far more stable than–and on average outperforms–both models on both objectives.

Alternative Objective Functions for Training MT Evaluation Metrics