TASER: Translation Assessment via Systematic Evaluation and Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00255v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:27:48 GMT
• Title: TASER: Translation Assessment via Systematic Evaluation and Reasoning
• Authors: Monishwaran Maheswaran, Marco Carini, Christian Federmann, Tony Diaz,
• Abstract summary: We introduce TASER (Translation Assessment via Systematic Evaluation and Reasoning), a metric that uses Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) for automated translation quality assessment.<n>Taser harnesses the explicit reasoning capabilities of LRMs to conduct systematic, step-by-step evaluation of translation quality.<n>Taser achieves the highest soft pairwise accuracy in both reference-based and reference-free settings, outperforming all existing metrics.
• Score: 5.024482993281034
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce TASER (Translation Assessment via Systematic Evaluation and Reasoning), a metric that uses Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) for automated translation quality assessment. TASER harnesses the explicit reasoning capabilities of LRMs to conduct systematic, step-by-step evaluation of translation quality. We evaluate TASER on the WMT24 Metrics Shared Task across both reference-based and reference-free scenarios, demonstrating state-of-the-art performance. In system-level evaluation, TASER achieves the highest soft pairwise accuracy in both reference-based and reference-free settings, outperforming all existing metrics. At the segment level, TASER maintains competitive performance with our reference-free variant ranking as the top-performing metric among all reference-free approaches. Our experiments reveal that structured prompting templates yield superior results with LRMs compared to the open-ended approaches that proved optimal for traditional LLMs. We evaluate o3, a large reasoning model from OpenAI, with varying reasoning efforts, providing insights into the relationship between reasoning depth and evaluation quality. The explicit reasoning process in LRMs offers interpretability and visibility, addressing a key limitation of existing automated metrics. Our results demonstrate that Large Reasoning Models show a measurable advancement in translation quality assessment, combining improved accuracy with transparent evaluation across diverse language pairs.

Related papers

• Unlocking Reasoning Capability on Machine Translation in Large Language Models [57.60641851466707]
  Reasoning-oriented large language models (RLMs) achieve strong gains on tasks such as mathematics and coding by generating explicit intermediate reasoning.<n>We systematically evaluate several open- and closed-weights RLMs on the WMT24++ benchmark.<n>We find that enabling explicit reasoning consistently degrades translation quality across languages and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T14:05:59Z)
• Beyond Literal Mapping: Benchmarking and Improving Non-Literal Translation Evaluation [57.11989521509119]
  We propose a novel agentic translation evaluation framework, centered by a reflective Core Agent that invokes specialized sub-agents.<n> Experimental results indicate the efficacy of RATE, achieving an improvement of at least 3.2 meta score compared with current metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T09:03:42Z)
• A Critical Study of Automatic Evaluation in Sign Language Translation [17.083206782232185]
  It remains unclear to what extent text-based metrics can reliably capture the quality of sign language translation (SLT) outputs.<n>We analyze six metrics, including BLEU, chrF, and ROUGE, as well as BLEURT on the one hand, and large language model (LLM)-based evaluators such as G-Eval and GEMBA zero-shot direct assessment on the other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T11:57:03Z)
• On Robustness and Reliability of Benchmark-Based Evaluation of LLMs [6.121856629864516]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) effectiveness is usually evaluated by means of benchmarks such as MMLU, ARC-C, or HellaSwag.<n>Real-world applications involve linguistic variability, requiring models to maintain their effectiveness across diverse rewordings of the same question or query.<n>We systematically assess the robustness of LLMs to paraphrased benchmark questions and investigate whether benchmark-based evaluations provide a reliable measure of model capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T08:43:27Z)
• AllSummedUp: un framework open-source pour comparer les metriques d'evaluation de resume [2.2153783542347805]
  This paper investigates challenges in automatic text summarization evaluation.<n>Based on experiments conducted across six representative metrics, we highlight significant discrepancies between reported performances in the literature and those observed in our experimental setting.<n>We introduce a unified, open-source framework, applied to the SummEval dataset and designed to support fair and transparent comparison of evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:05:00Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
  We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z)
• HiMATE: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation [39.7293877954587]
  HiMATE is a Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation.<n>We develop a hierarchical multi-agent system grounded in the MQM error typology, enabling granular evaluation of subtype errors.<n> Empirically, HiMATE outperforms competitive baselines across different datasets in conducting human-aligned evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T06:24:08Z)
• FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models [79.41859481668618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies.<n>Existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics.<n>We introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:44:22Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)

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.