Are Large Reasoning Models Good Translation Evaluators? Analysis and Performance Boost

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20780v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:48:36 GMT
• Title: Are Large Reasoning Models Good Translation Evaluators? Analysis and Performance Boost
• Authors: Runzhe Zhan, Zhihong Huang, Xinyi Yang, Lidia S. Chao, Min Yang, Derek F. Wong,
• Abstract summary: Large reasoning models (LRMs) can be evaluators for machine translation (MT) quality.<n>We provide the first systematic analysis of LRM-as-a-judge in MT evaluation.<n>We propose to calibrate LRM thinking by training them on synthetic, human-like thinking trajectories.
• Score: 47.98620231787199
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in large reasoning models (LRMs) have introduced an intermediate "thinking" process prior to generating final answers, improving their reasoning capabilities on complex downstream tasks. However, the potential of LRMs as evaluators for machine translation (MT) quality remains underexplored. We provides the first systematic analysis of LRM-as-a-judge in MT evaluation. We identify key challenges, revealing LRMs require tailored evaluation materials, tend to "overthink" simpler instances and have issues with scoring mechanisms leading to overestimation. To address these, we propose to calibrate LRM thinking by training them on synthetic, human-like thinking trajectories. Our experiments on WMT24 Metrics benchmarks demonstrate that this approach largely reduces thinking budgets by ~35x while concurrently improving evaluation performance across different LRM scales from 7B to 32B (e.g., R1-Distill-Qwen-7B achieves a +8.7 correlation point improvement). These findings highlight the potential of efficiently calibrated LRMs to advance fine-grained automatic MT evaluation.

Related papers

• Foundational Automatic Evaluators: Scaling Multi-Task Generative Evaluator Training for Reasoning-Centric Domains [97.5573252172065]
  We train a family of Automatic Reasoning Evaluators (FARE) with a simple iterative rejection-sampling supervised finetuning approach.<n>FARE-8B challenges larger specialized RL-trained evaluators and FARE-20B sets the new standard for open-source evaluators.<n>As inference-time rerankers, FARE-20B achieves near-oracle performance on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T17:52:06Z)
• Towards Evaluting Fake Reasoning Bias in Language Models [47.482898076525494]
  We show that models favor the surface structure of reasoning even when the logic is flawed.<n>We introduce THEATER, a benchmark that systematically investigates Fake Reasoning Bias (FRB)<n>We evaluate 17 advanced Large Language Models (LRMs) on both subjective DPO and factual datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• ReasonFlux-PRM: Trajectory-Aware PRMs for Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs [75.72672339168092]
  We introduce ReasonFlux-PRM, a novel trajectory-aware PRM to evaluate trajectory-response type of reasoning traces.<n>ReasonFlux-PRM incorporates both step-level and trajectory-level supervision, enabling fine-grained reward assignment aligned with structured chain-of-thought data.<n>Our derived ReasonFlux-PRM-7B yields consistent performance improvements, achieving average gains of 12.1% in supervised fine-tuning, 4.5% in reinforcement learning, and 6.3% in test-time scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:59:02Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step.<n>Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy.<n>We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM)<n>R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• ReARTeR: Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning with Trustworthy Process Rewarding [25.329712997545794]
  We propose Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning through Trustworthy Process Rewarding (ReARTeR)<n>ReARTeR enhances RAG systems' reasoning capabilities through post-training and test-time scaling.<n> Experimental results on multi-step reasoning benchmarks demonstrate significant improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T05:56:26Z)
• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes.<n>We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• PRMBench: A Fine-grained and Challenging Benchmark for Process-Level Reward Models [28.74956741932006]
  We introduce PRMBench, a process-level benchmark to assess the fine-grained error detection capabilities of PRMs.<n>PRMBench comprises 6,216 carefully designed problems and 83,456 step-level labels, evaluating models across multiple dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T16:31:45Z)
• RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment [44.843048223762906]
  Reward models (RMs) guide the alignment of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose RMB, a comprehensive RM benchmark that covers over 49 real-world scenarios.<n>Based on our benchmark, we conduct extensive analysis on the state-of-the-art RMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T16:06:54Z)

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.