A survey on the tool support for the automatic evaluation of mobile accessibility

Author(s):  
Camila Silva ◽  
Marcelo Medeiros Eler ◽  
Gordon Fraser
2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 23-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Farmer ◽  
Neil Sculthorpe ◽  
Andy Gill

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-205
Author(s):  
Hye-Yeon Chung

AbstractHuman evaluation (HE) of translation is generally considered to be valid, but it requires a lot of effort. Automatic evaluation (AE) which assesses the quality of machine translations can be done easily, but it still requires validation. This study addresses the questions of whether and how AE can be used for human translations. For this purpose AE formulas and HE criteria were compared to each other in order to examine the validity of AE. In the empirical part of the study, 120 translations were evaluated by professional translators as well as by two representative AE-systems, BLEU/ METEOR, respectively. The correlations between AE and HE were relatively high at 0.849** (BLEU) and 0.862** (METEOR) in the overall analysis, but in the ratings of the individual texts, AE and ME exhibited a substantial difference. The AE-ME correlations were often below 0.3 or even in the negative range. Ultimately, the results indicate that neither METEOR nor BLEU can be used to assess human translation at this stage. But this paper suggests three possibilities to apply AE to compromise the weakness of HE.


Author(s):  
S. Blom ◽  
S. Darabi ◽  
M. Huisman ◽  
M. Safari

AbstractA commonly used approach to develop deterministic parallel programs is to augment a sequential program with compiler directives that indicate which program blocks may potentially be executed in parallel. This paper develops a verification technique to reason about such compiler directives, in particular to show that they do not change the behaviour of the program. Moreover, the verification technique is tool-supported and can be combined with proving functional correctness of the program. To develop our verification technique, we propose a simple intermediate representation (syntax and semantics) that captures the main forms of deterministic parallel programs. This language distinguishes three kinds of basic blocks: parallel, vectorised and sequential blocks, which can be composed using three different composition operators: sequential, parallel and fusion composition. We show how a widely used subset of OpenMP can be encoded into this intermediate representation. Our verification technique builds on the notion of iteration contract to specify the behaviour of basic blocks; we show that if iteration contracts are manually specified for single blocks, then that is sufficient to automatically reason about data race freedom of the composed program. Moreover, we also show that it is sufficient to establish functional correctness on a linearised version of the original program to conclude functional correctness of the parallel program. Finally, we exemplify our approach on an example OpenMP program, and we discuss how tool support is provided.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document