An LLM-as-a-judge Approach for Scalable Gender-Neutral Translation Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11934v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:14:27 GMT
• Title: An LLM-as-a-judge Approach for Scalable Gender-Neutral Translation Evaluation
• Authors: Andrea Piergentili, Beatrice Savoldi, Matteo Negri, Luisa Bentivogli,
• Abstract summary: Gender-neutral translation (GNT) aims to avoid expressing the gender of human referents when the source text lacks explicit cues about the gender of those referents.<n>We investigate the use of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators of GNT.
• Score: 14.799630514233238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Gender-neutral translation (GNT) aims to avoid expressing the gender of human referents when the source text lacks explicit cues about the gender of those referents. Evaluating GNT automatically is particularly challenging, with current solutions being limited to monolingual classifiers. Such solutions are not ideal because they do not factor in the source sentence and require dedicated data and fine-tuning to scale to new languages. In this work, we address such limitations by investigating the use of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators of GNT. Specifically, we explore two prompting approaches: one in which LLMs generate sentence-level assessments only, and another, akin to a chain-of-thought approach, where they first produce detailed phrase-level annotations before a sentence-level judgment. Through extensive experiments on multiple languages with five models, both open and proprietary, we show that LLMs can serve as evaluators of GNT. Moreover, we find that prompting for phrase-level annotations before sentence-level assessments consistently improves the accuracy of all models, providing a better and more scalable alternative to current solutions.

Related papers

• Natural Language-based Assessment of L2 Oral Proficiency using LLMs [5.931245606235828]
  Natural language-based assessment (NLA) is an approach to second language assessment that uses instructions expressed in the form of can-do descriptors.<n>In this work, we explore the use of such descriptors with an open-source LLM, Qwen 2.5 72B, to assess responses from the publicly available S&I Corpus.<n>Our results show that this approach achieves competitive performance: while it does not outperform state-of-the-art speech LLMs fine-tuned for the task, it surpasses a BERT-based model trained specifically for this purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T12:13:50Z)
• Mechanistic Understanding and Mitigation of Language Confusion in English-Centric Large Language Models [49.09746599881631]
  We present the first mechanistic interpretability study of language confusion.<n>We show that confusion points (CPs) are central to this phenomenon.<n>We show that editing a small set of critical neurons, identified via comparative analysis with multilingual-tuned models, substantially mitigates confusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T11:29:17Z)
• LLM-Based Evaluation of Low-Resource Machine Translation: A Reference-less Dialect Guided Approach with a Refined Sylheti-English Benchmark [1.3927943269211591]
  We propose a comprehensive framework that enhances Large Language Models (LLMs)-based machine translation evaluation.<n>We extend the ONUBAD dataset by incorporating Sylheti-English sentence pairs, corresponding machine translations, and Direct Assessment (DA) scores annotated by native speakers.<n>Our evaluation shows that the proposed pipeline consistently outperforms existing methods, achieving the highest gain of +0.1083 in Spearman correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T07:24:13Z)
• Comparing LLM Text Annotation Skills: A Study on Human Rights Violations in Social Media Data [2.812898346527047]
  This study investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot and few-shot annotation of social media posts in Russian and Ukrainian.<n>To evaluate the effectiveness of these models, their annotations are compared against a gold standard set of human double-annotated labels.<n>The study explores the unique patterns of errors and disagreements exhibited by each model, offering insights into their strengths, limitations, and cross-linguistic adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:10:47Z)
• When LLMs Struggle: Reference-less Translation Evaluation for Low-resource Languages [9.138590152838754]
  Segment-level quality estimation (QE) is a challenging cross-lingual language understanding task.<n>We comprehensively evaluate large language models (LLMs) in zero/few-shot scenarios.<n>Our results indicate that prompt-based approaches are outperformed by the encoder-based fine-tuned QE models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T12:54:05Z)
• CATER: Leveraging LLM to Pioneer a Multidimensional, Reference-Independent Paradigm in Translation Quality Evaluation [0.0]
  Comprehensive AI-assisted Translation Edit Ratio (CATER) is a novel framework for evaluating machine translation (MT) quality.<n>Uses large language models (LLMs) via a carefully designed prompt-based protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T17:45:34Z)
• Mitigating Biases to Embrace Diversity: A Comprehensive Annotation Benchmark for Toxic Language [0.0]
  This study introduces a prescriptive annotation benchmark grounded in humanities research to ensure consistent, unbiased labeling of offensive language. We contribute two newly annotated datasets that achieve higher inter-annotator agreement between human and language model (LLM) annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T08:10:24Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• HyPoradise: An Open Baseline for Generative Speech Recognition with Large Language Models [81.56455625624041]
  We introduce the first open-source benchmark to utilize external large language models (LLMs) for ASR error correction. The proposed benchmark contains a novel dataset, HyPoradise (HP), encompassing more than 334,000 pairs of N-best hypotheses. LLMs with reasonable prompt and its generative capability can even correct those tokens that are missing in N-best list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T14:44:10Z)
• Towards Effective Disambiguation for Machine Translation with Large Language Models [65.80775710657672]
  We study the capabilities of large language models to translate "ambiguous sentences" Experiments show that our methods can match or outperform state-of-the-art systems such as DeepL and NLLB in four out of five language directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T22:22:52Z)
• Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation? [20.476500441734427]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Their evaluation, particularly in languages beyond the top $20$, remains inadequate due to existing benchmarks and metrics limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T06:41:58Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Are Large Language Models Robust Coreference Resolvers? [17.60248310475889]
  We show that prompting for coreference can outperform current unsupervised coreference systems. Further investigations reveal that instruction-tuned LMs generalize surprisingly well across domains, languages, and time periods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T19:38:28Z)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)
• Improving Multilingual Translation by Representation and Gradient Regularization [82.42760103045083]
  We propose a joint approach to regularize NMT models at both representation-level and gradient-level. Our results demonstrate that our approach is highly effective in both reducing off-target translation occurrences and improving zero-shot translation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-10T10:52:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.