TQLite: Multi-LLM Jury Guided Distillation for Real-time MQM Translation Quality Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02975v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:24:06 GMT
• Title: TQLite: Multi-LLM Jury Guided Distillation for Real-time MQM Translation Quality Evaluation
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in MQM-based translation quality (TQ) evaluation.<n>Recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) promise even greater improvements.<n>Small language models (SLMs) are much more efficient---struggle with the complex reasoning required for evaluation tasks.<n>We introduce TQLite, a novel distillation framework that enables SLMs to approach the MQM evaluation performance of the best LRM-based evaluators.
• Score: 2.4186365899373565
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in MQM-based translation quality (TQ) evaluation, and recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) promise even greater improvements. However, both LLMs and LRMs are computationally expensive to deploy at scale, while small language models (SLMs)---though much more efficient---struggle with the complex reasoning required for evaluation tasks. In this work, we present an extensive empirical study benchmarking SLMs, LLMs, and LRMs across a wide range of TQ evaluation setups, providing a comprehensive view of the current landscape and establishing best practices. To address the scalability challenge, we introduce TQLite, a novel distillation framework that enables SLMs to approach the MQM evaluation performance of the best LRM-based evaluators. Our approach leverages a multi-LRM jury to generate high-quality synthetic training data via practical data curation techniques and aggregation of evaluation responses across a diverse panel of models. Our results demonstrate that SLMs trained via TQLite achieve strong MQM evaluation performance that far exceeds off-the-shelf evaluation capabilities of standard SLMs, offering a scalable and cost-effective alternative to LLM- and LRM-based evaluators.

Related papers

• M-MAD: Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate for Advanced Machine Translation Evaluation [12.042804590050089]
  Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate (M-MAD) is a systematic LLM-based multi-agent framework for advanced machine translation evaluation.<n>Our findings demonstrate that M-MAD achieves significant advancements by (1) decoupling MQM criteria into distinct evaluation dimensions for fine-grained assessments.<n> Comprehensive experiments show that M-MAD not only outperforms all existing LLM-as-a-judge methods but also competes with state-of-the-art reference-based automatic metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-28T12:11:28Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
  This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation. Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs. Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z)
• LLMs May Perform MCQA by Selecting the Least Incorrect Option [29.202758753639078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have markedly enhanced performance across a variety of tasks.<n>The adoption of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for assessing LLMs has gained considerable traction.<n>However, concerns regarding the robustness of this evaluative method persist.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T12:07:00Z)
• METAL: Metamorphic Testing Framework for Analyzing Large-Language Model Qualities [4.493507573183107]
  Large-Language Models (LLMs) have shifted the paradigm of natural language data processing. Recent studies have tested Quality Attributes (QAs) of LLMs by generating adversarial input texts. We propose a MEtamorphic Testing for Analyzing LLMs (METAL) framework to address these issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T01:29:19Z)
• MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria [49.500322937449326]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating queries without considering user experiences. We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T12:04:25Z)
• ChEF: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Standardized Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models [49.48109472893714]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown impressive abilities in interacting with visual content with myriad potential downstream tasks. We present the first Comprehensive Evaluation Framework (ChEF) that can holistically profile each MLLM and fairly compare different MLLMs. We will publicly release all the detailed implementations for further analysis, as well as an easy-to-use modular toolkit for the integration of new recipes and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-05T16:01:40Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models [111.51612340032052]
  Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) relies on the powerful LLM to perform multimodal tasks.<n>This paper presents the first comprehensive MLLM Evaluation benchmark MME.<n>It measures both perception and cognition abilities on a total of 14 subtasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T09:22:36Z)

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.