Expert Adjudication Process

An Expert Adjudication Process is an evaluation adjudication process that resolves evaluation disagreements through professional experts applying domain expertise to achieve evaluation consensus.

• AKA: Expert Resolution Process, Professional Adjudication Workflow, Expert-Based Disagreement Resolution.
• Context:
  • It can typically employ Domain Experts with professional credentials.
  • It can typically follow MQM Framework guidelines for translation quality.
  • It can often resolve Inter-Annotator Disagreements in high-stakes evaluations.
  • It can often produce Gold Standard Annotations through expert consensus.
  • It can utilize Structured Adjudication Protocols with clear criterion.
  • It can integrate with WMT Evaluation Campaigns for translation assessment.
  • It can generate Adjudication Reports documenting resolution rationale.
  • It can range from being a Binary Expert Adjudication Process to being a Multi-Class Expert Adjudication Process, depending on its decision complexity.
  • It can range from being a Single-Expert Adjudication Process to being a Panel Expert Adjudication Process, depending on its expert count.
  • It can range from being a Synchronous Expert Adjudication Process to being an Asynchronous Expert Adjudication Process, depending on its temporal coordination.
  • It can range from being a Blind Expert Adjudication Process to being an Open Expert Adjudication Process, depending on its information transparency.
  • ...
• Examples:
  • MQM Expert Adjudication Processes, such as:
    • MQM Translation Expert Adjudication for translation quality.
    • MQM Terminology Expert Adjudication for term consistency.
  • WMT Expert Adjudication Processes, such as:
    • WMT Direct Assessment Adjudication for assessment conflict.
    • WMT Ranking Adjudication for system ranking.
  • Domain-Specific Expert Adjudications, such as:
    • Medical Translation Expert Adjudication for clinical accuracy.
    • Legal Translation Expert Adjudication for legal precision.
  • ...
• Counter-Examples:
  • Crowd Adjudication Process, which uses non-expert annotators.
  • Automated Adjudication Process, which lacks human judgment.
  • Majority Vote Resolution, which lacks expert deliberation.
• See: Evaluation Resolution Process, Inter-Expert Agreement Metric, Expert Annotation Task, NLG Gold Reference Dataset, MQM Framework, WMT Evaluation, Evaluation Protocol, Annotation Guidelines, Evaluation Reliability Metric.

---