XQ-MEval: A Dataset with Cross-lingual Parallel Quality for Benchmarking Translation Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14934v2
• Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 06:01:25 GMT
• Title: XQ-MEval: A Dataset with Cross-lingual Parallel Quality for Benchmarking Translation Metrics
• Abstract summary: We propose XQ-MEval, a semi-automatically built dataset covering nine translation directions.<n>We inject MQM-defined errors into gold translations automatically, filter them by native speakers for reliability, and merge errors to generate pseudo translations with controllable quality.<n>Using XQ-MEval, our experiments on nine representative metrics reveal the inconsistency between averaging and human judgment.
• Score: 64.77152900881724
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation metrics are essential for building multilingual translation systems. The common practice of evaluating these systems is averaging metric scores across languages, yet this is suspicious since metrics may suffer from cross-lingual scoring bias, where translations of equal quality receive different scores across languages. This problem has not been systematically studied because no benchmark exists that provides parallel-quality instances across languages, and expert annotation is not realistic. In this work, we propose XQ-MEval, a semi-automatically built dataset covering nine translation directions, to benchmark translation metrics. Specifically, we inject MQM-defined errors into gold translations automatically, filter them by native speakers for reliability, and merge errors to generate pseudo translations with controllable quality. These pseudo translations are then paired with corresponding sources and references to form triplets used in assessing the qualities of translation metrics. Using XQ-MEval, our experiments on nine representative metrics reveal the inconsistency between averaging and human judgment and provide the first empirical evidence of cross-lingual scoring bias. Finally, we propose a normalization strategy derived from XQ-MEval that aligns score distributions across languages, improving the fairness and reliability of multilingual metric evaluation.

Related papers

• Quantifying the Impact of Translation Errors on Multilingual LLM Evaluation [8.48956061615262]
  Machine-translated benchmarks are widely used to assess the multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We address two practical gaps: how well automatic MQM-style error spans from LLM judges and a span-aware QE baseline.<n>We find that span agreement is non-trivial on naturally occurring benchmark translations, and that target-side translation errors are consistently associated with measurable, percentage-point drops in translated accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T07:06:34Z)
• 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)
• Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answering [68.3400058037817]
  We introduce TREQA (Translation Evaluation via Question-Answering), a framework that extrinsically evaluates translation quality.<n>We show that TREQA is competitive with and, in some cases, outperforms state-of-the-art neural and LLM-based metrics in ranking alternative paragraph-level translations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T09:24:54Z)
• Can Automatic Metrics Assess High-Quality Translations? [28.407966066693334]
  We show that current metrics are insensitive to nuanced differences in translation quality. This effect is most pronounced when the quality is high and the variance among alternatives is low. Using the MQM framework as the gold standard, we systematically stress-test the ability of current metrics to identify translations with no errors as marked by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T16:44:02Z)
• BiVert: Bidirectional Vocabulary Evaluation using Relations for Machine Translation [4.651581292181871]
  We propose a bidirectional semantic-based evaluation method designed to assess the sense distance of the translation from the source text. This approach employs the comprehensive multilingual encyclopedic dictionary BabelNet. Factual analysis shows a strong correlation between the average evaluation scores generated by our method and the human assessments across various machine translation systems for English-German language pair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T08:02:21Z)
• BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Training [64.37683359609308]
  In this study, we analyze various mainstream and cutting-edge automatic metrics from the perspective of their guidance for training machine translation systems. We find that certain metrics exhibit robustness defects, such as the presence of universal adversarial translations in BLEURT and BARTScore. In-depth analysis suggests two main causes of these robustness deficits: distribution biases in the training datasets, and the tendency of the metric paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:59:30Z)
• 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)
• On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluation [55.02832094101173]
  Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual similarity. This paper concerns ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T22:10:23Z)

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.