Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
MQM and ESA abandon reliance on reference translations and directly annotate errors in the translation, so they are regarded as approaches closer to human judgment, but at the cost of sharply rising annotation costs.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/12/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedMQM classifies, counts, and weights errors by error type (such as accuracy and fluency) and severity (such as minor and major), while ESA requires annotators to precisely circle the text spans corresponding to errors.59% similarUnverifiedErrors that occur early in the process (such as selecting the wrong data source) and are only detected at the end result in the entire reasoning chain being built on a faulty foundation, making correction extremely costly.54% similarUnverifiedIn standard application development, applying mutable database state (such as UPDATE overwriting old values) to money makes auditing difficult, making it impossible to answer how a balance came to be.54% similarUnverifiedMissing citations raise concerns about attribution and reliability, as users cannot trace the origin of claims for fact-checking.53% similarUnverifiedAt the trillion-token scale, the traditional model of manual spot-checking combined with post-hoc auditing is no longer feasible in terms of time and cost.53% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1012335API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1012335MCP
get_claim(id=1012335)