How Far Can Machine Translation Quality Take You? Extrinsic Discourse Evaluation in Goal-Oriented Setups

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16596v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:44:02 GMT
• Title: How Far Can Machine Translation Quality Take You? Extrinsic Discourse Evaluation in Goal-Oriented Setups
• Abstract summary: We focus on extrinsic discourse evaluation of machine translation under two distinct regimes: static and interactive.<n>Under the static regime, we propose an entity counting task as a probe of referential consistency in discourse.<n>For the interactive regime, we study the goal-oriented multi-agent Welfare Diplomacy game as a probe of long-horizon communication and coordination.
• Score: 8.64753386599377
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Existing machine translation (MT) metrics and discourse-focused evaluations primarily assess translation quality intrinsically, without measuring the downstream consequences of translation errors. In this work, we focus on extrinsic discourse evaluation of machine translation under two distinct regimes: static and interactive. Under the static regime, we propose an entity counting task as a probe of referential consistency in discourse. We show that high intrinsic MT quality does not reliably predict downstream discourse success and strong MT systems still produce referential inconsistencies. For the interactive regime, we study the goal-oriented multi-agent Welfare Diplomacy game as a probe of long-horizon communication and coordination. We find that interaction-specific translation failures impact downstream coordination. Our results highlight goal-oriented environments as a viable framework for discourse-sensitive extrinsic MT evaluation.

Related papers

• 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)
• Understanding and Addressing the Under-Translation Problem from the Perspective of Decoding Objective [72.83966378613238]
  Under-translation and over-translation remain two challenging problems in state-of-the-art Neural Machine Translation (NMT) systems. We conduct an in-depth analysis on the underlying cause of under-translation in NMT, providing an explanation from the perspective of decoding objective. We propose employing the confidence of predicting End Of Sentence (EOS) as a detector for under-translation, and strengthening the confidence-based penalty to penalize candidates with a high risk of under-translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T09:25:49Z)
• Discourse Centric Evaluation of Machine Translation with a Densely Annotated Parallel Corpus [82.07304301996562]
  This paper presents a new dataset with rich discourse annotations, built upon the large-scale parallel corpus BWB introduced in Jiang et al. We investigate the similarities and differences between the discourse structures of source and target languages. We discover that MT outputs differ fundamentally from human translations in terms of their latent discourse structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T17:36:41Z)
• 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)
• Sentiment-Aware Measure (SAM) for Evaluating Sentiment Transfer by Machine Translation Systems [0.0]
  In translating text where sentiment is the main message, human translators give particular attention to sentiment-carrying words. We propose a numerical sentiment-closeness' measure appropriate for assessing the accuracy of a translated affect message in text by an MT system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T07:35:56Z)
• When Does Translation Require Context? A Data-driven, Multilingual Exploration [71.43817945875433]
  proper handling of discourse significantly contributes to the quality of machine translation (MT) Recent works in context-aware MT attempt to target a small set of discourse phenomena during evaluation. We develop the Multilingual Discourse-Aware benchmark, a series of taggers that identify and evaluate model performance on discourse phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-15T17:29:30Z)
• 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)
• Can Your Context-Aware MT System Pass the DiP Benchmark Tests? : Evaluation Benchmarks for Discourse Phenomena in Machine Translation [7.993547048820065]
  We introduce the first of their kind MT benchmark datasets that aim to track and hail improvements across four main discourse phenomena. Surprisingly, we find that existing context-aware models do not improve discourse-related translations consistently across languages and phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T07:15:36Z)

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.