Span-Level Machine Translation Meta-Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19921v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:08:19 GMT
• Title: Span-Level Machine Translation Meta-Evaluation
• Abstract summary: Machine Translation (MT) and automatic MT evaluation have improved dramatically in recent years.<n>It remains unclear how to reliably measure the evaluation capabilities of auto-evaluators that do error detection.<n>This work investigates different implementations of span-level precision, recall, and F-score.
• Score: 1.4760888896095816
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine Translation (MT) and automatic MT evaluation have improved dramatically in recent years, enabling numerous novel applications. Automatic evaluation techniques have evolved from producing scalar quality scores to precisely locating translation errors and assigning them error categories and severity levels. However, it remains unclear how to reliably measure the evaluation capabilities of auto-evaluators that do error detection, as no established technique exists in the literature. This work investigates different implementations of span-level precision, recall, and F-score, showing that seemingly similar approaches can yield substantially different rankings, and that certain widely-used techniques are unsuitable for evaluating MT error detection. We propose "match with partial overlap and partial credit" (MPP) with micro-averaging as a robust meta-evaluation strategy and release code for its use publicly. Finally, we use MPP to assess the state of the art in MT error detection.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• MT-Ranker: Reference-free machine translation evaluation by inter-system ranking [14.188948302661933]
  We show that MT-Ranker, trained without any human annotations, achieves state-of-the-art results on the WMT Shared Metrics Task benchmarks DARR20, MQM20, and MQM21. MT-Ranker marks state-of-the-art against reference-free as well as reference-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T15:30:03Z)
• The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluation [93.01964988474755]
  AutoMQM is a prompting technique which asks large language models to identify and categorize errors in translations. We study the impact of labeled data through in-context learning and finetuning. We then evaluate AutoMQM with PaLM-2 models, and we find that it improves performance compared to just prompting for scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T17:17:21Z)
• Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models [57.80514758695275]
  Using large language models (LLMs) for assessing the quality of machine translation (MT) achieves state-of-the-art performance at the system level. We propose a new prompting method called textbftextttError Analysis Prompting (EAPrompt) This technique emulates the commonly accepted human evaluation framework - Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and textitproduces explainable and reliable MT evaluations at both the system and segment level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T05:05:03Z)
• Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metrics [78.75776477562087]
  It is unclear if automatic metrics are reliable at distinguishing good translations from bad translations at the sentence level. We evaluate the segment-level performance of the most widely used MT metrics (chrF, COMET, BERTScore, etc.) on three downstream cross-lingual tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that all metrics exhibit negligible correlation with the extrinsic evaluation of the downstream outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T14:39:58Z)
• Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translation [64.24934199944875]
  We propose quality-aware decoding for neural machine translation (NMT) We leverage recent breakthroughs in reference-free and reference-based MT evaluation through various inference methods. We find that quality-aware decoding consistently outperforms MAP-based decoding according both to state-of-the-art automatic metrics and to human assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-02T15:26:28Z)
• Better Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Translation Evaluation [17.36759906285316]
  We train the COMET metric with new heteroscedastic regression, divergence minimization, and direct uncertainty prediction objectives. Experiments show improved results on WMT20 and WMT21 metrics task datasets and a substantial reduction in computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-13T17:49:25Z)
• Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Papers [21.802259336894068]
  This paper presents the first large-scale meta-evaluation of machine translation (MT) We annotated MT evaluations conducted in 769 research papers published from 2010 to 2020.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T09:30:17Z)
• Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics [64.88815792555451]
  We show that current methods for judging metrics are highly sensitive to the translations used for assessment. We develop a method for thresholding performance improvement under an automatic metric against human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T09:12:53Z)

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.