General translation quality errors fall by 54% in three-step solutions (translation + LQA + repair) and just by 7% in two-step solutions (translation + post-edit).
In a two-step solution, we post-edit the one-step translation with an LLM. In a three-step solution, we assess the translation with Intento LQA and send it with the findings to an LLM for a repair. We implement these two-step and three-step workflows in Intento Language Hub, including the transfer of Intento LQA findings to the repair step.
With the same LLM in every step, general translation quality errors weighted by severity fall on average from 40 per 1,000 words in the one-step solutions to 37 in the two-step solutions and to 18 in the three-step solutions. The three-step solutions have fewer errors than the two-step solutions with each of the 17 LLMs, from Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, Mistral, OpenAI, xAI and z.ai.
General translation quality comes mostly from the pre-training of a model, and we see little gain from a second pass without a list of the errors. We assess every two-step and three-step solution again, without the findings in the prompts of the LQA judges.
Chart data
| Solutions | Average, weighted errors per 1,000 words | 90% interval, low | 90% interval, high | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-step solutions | 39.9 | 37.4 | 42.9 | 34.3 |
| Two-step solutions (translation + post-edit) | 37.3 | 34.6 | 40.3 | 31.3 |
| Three-step solutions (translation + LQA + repair) | 18.2 | 16.6 | 20 | 15 |