arXiv Computation and Language

Pearmut: Human Evaluation of Translation Made Trivial

arXiv AI
1d ago

Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English

The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.

By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

Beyond "To whom it may concern": Tailoring Machine Translation to Audience and Intent

The paper investigates how machine translation can be tailored to specific audiences and intents, a capability enabled by large language models (LLMs). By systematically evaluating purpose-driven MT across 50 languages, 5 model sizes, and 8 text domains, the authors find that explicit instructions significantly improve translation adaptiveness, especially for informal domains, larger models, and higher-resource languages. They also show that traditional MT metrics often penalize adapted translations and that models can self-generate useful instructions from context, closing a large portion of the adaptiveness gap.

By Raphael Merx, Ekaterina Vylomova, Trevor Cohn
arXiv AI
2d ago

Is Human Annotation Necessary? Iterative MBR Distillation for Error Span Detection in Machine Translation

The paper introduces Iterative MBR Distillation for Error Span Detection (ESD) in machine translation, a self‑evolution framework that replaces human annotations with pseudo‑labels generated by a large language model. By iteratively applying Minimum Bayes Risk decoding, the method produces high‑quality error spans without costly human effort. Experiments on WMT Metrics Shared Task datasets show that models trained solely on these pseudo‑labels outperform both unadapted baselines and supervised models trained on human data at system and span levels, while keeping sentence‑level performance competitive.

By Boxuan Lyu, Haiyue Song, Zhi Qu
arXiv AI
Jul 15

Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking

arXiv:2607. 12085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality.

By Niranjan Kumar M, Balaji Nagarajan, Karthik Nair, Faysal Satter, Nithin Surendran
arXiv AI
2d ago

WorldBench: Culturally Grounded Benchmark for Multilingual Agents

WorldBench is a new multilingual benchmark that tests large language model agents on culturally grounded everyday workflows, offering 1,600 tasks in seven languages and eight cultures. The benchmark evaluates agents through structured sandbox actions and introduces Constrained Task Success (CTS), a metric that assesses task completion, minimal modification, and other complementary aspects via deterministic and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. Experiments show that even leading models achieve only 49.2% CTS, revealing significant gaps in correctness and state preservation across languages and cultures.

By Leonardo Ranaldi, Sherrie Shen, Jushi Kai, Alexandra Birch
arXiv AI
Jun 26

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.

By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu