arXiv Computation and Language By Ben Yan, Zongyao Li, Xiaoyu Chen, Daimeng Wei, Weidong Liu, Huan Zhao, Chong Li, Yaode Wang, Yuzhe Shang

EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

EviSI is an evidence‑based evaluation agent for low‑latency simultaneous speech‑to‑speech translation. It combines Multidimensional Quality Metrics with interpreter‑developed criteria, using shared source evidence to assess four dimensions—Anchor, Event, Logic, and Fluency—while deduplicating verified errors before scoring. On English‑to‑Chinese and Chinese‑to‑English data, EviSI’s rankings correlate strongly with human judgments, outperforming BLEU and COMET, and its multilingual extension maintains these correlations across five language directions.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 8

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 Computation and Language
Oct 9

Large Language Models for Machine Translation Quality Annotation: Humans and Models Are Both Challenged

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being tested as a cost‑effective alternative to human judgment for evaluating machine translation (MT). This study compares LLM agreement with human annotators on two MT quality schemes—Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA)—across 70 language pairs and public WMT23/25 data. Results show that while LLMs sometimes match or exceed human agreement, performance varies widely by scheme, language, and domain, and remains unreliable in many settings. The work also identifies specific challenges for both humans (e.g., fine‑grained MQM, low‑resource languages) and LLMs (e.g., minor errors, wrong language variants, span annotation).

By Hala Almaghout, Christian Federmann, Qin Gao
arXiv Computation and Language
6d ago

Refined Assessment for Translation Evaluation: Rethinking Machine Translation Evaluation in the Era of Human-Level Systems

arXiv:2610.33749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As machine translation systems approach human-level quality, traditional evaluation methodologies struggle to detect subtle translation errors. We crit...

By Dmitry Popov, Vladislav Negodin, Ekaterina Enikeeva, Iana Matrosova, Nikolay Karpachev, Max Ryabinin