arXiv Computation and Language

AI translation of literary texts is "fine", but readers still prefer human translations

arXiv AI
Sep 3

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
Sep 1

Learning from Many Voices: Literary MT Using Multi-Reference Human and Synthetic Data

The paper explores how to improve literary machine translation by using datasets that contain multiple valid translations of the same source text. It introduces a filtering framework that selects source texts whose references show meaningful variation while staying faithful, based on semantic similarity. Experiments show that fine‑tuning on medium to high similarity data outperforms low similarity data, and that using only this filtered subset can match or exceed performance achieved with the full unfiltered set. Additionally, the study compares synthetic translations generated by large language models with human expert translations, finding that fine‑tuning on human expert data yields better results in both automatic metrics and human evaluations, underscoring the continued importance of expert translations for literary MT.

By Si Wu, John Wieting, David A. Smith
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 5

M-GATE: Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency Benchmark for Large Language Models

arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.

By Tom\'a\v{s} Burkert, Angelika Peljak-{\L}api\'nska, David Zelen\'y
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Value Over Language Model: Detecting Original Contribution in Writing

The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.

By Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean
Hugging Face Trending Papers
5d ago

EviSI: An Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting

EviSI is a large language model evaluation agent designed for simultaneous speech-to-speech translation. It adapts Multidimensional Quality Metrics to assess semantic fidelity and oral expression, using shared source evidence and deterministic scoring. In English‑to‑Chinese, EviSI achieves a mean Kendall agreement of 0.707 with human system rankings, outperforming baseline metrics, and shows positive concordance with COMET across five translation directions.

arXiv AI
Sep 4

Translation as a Decision Space: A Multi-Agent Perspective on Low-Resource Dialect Generation

The paper proposes treating translation as a structured decision space explored by multiple autonomous agents, rather than producing a single output. Using Turkish–Syrian Arabic dialogue, three agents—zero‑shot, dialect‑stabilized, and pivot translation—are compared on 5,000 sentences, with stabilization nearly doubling dialect marker usage and reducing structural instability. The study introduces an interpretability framework that quantifies decision flexibility through dialect marker frequency, lexical proximity, and structural variance.

By Hasan Alkhder, Mohammad Abboush, Igor Tchappi, Ahmet Zengin, Amro Najjar