Communication in times of crisis is essential. However, there is often a mismatch between the language of governments, aid providers, doctors, and those to whom they are providing aid. It is reasonable to turn to commercial MT tools in these scenarios. But how effective are these tools for translating to and from low resource languages, particularly in the crisis or medical domain? In this study, we evaluate 5 commercial systems used for MT (Google Translate, Microsoft Translator, GPT, Gemini and Claude) against the TICO-19 dataset, which contains pandemic-related sentences from a large set of high-priority languages spoken by communities most likely to be adversely affected in the next pandemic. We assess the current degree of "readiness" for this next pandemic based on the usability of the output translations.
Figures & tables
BLEU Score
Interpretation
< 10
Almost useless
10 - 19
Hard to get the gist
20 - 29
Clear gist, major grammatical errors
30 - 40
Understandable to good translations
40 - 50
High quality translations
50 - 60
Very high quality, fluent translations
Table 1: BLEU Score Interpretation
Data Source
Domain
# Sentences
CMU
Conversational, medical
104
PubMed
Scientific, medical
676
Wikipedia
General
1,153
Wikivoyage
Travel
dev only
Wikinews
News
66
Wikisource
Announcements
99
Table 2: TICO-19 Test Data Statistics by Domain
Figure 1: Graphs showing comparative 2026 CHRF++ scores across language pairs (E to X and X to E)
Language
EX/XE
Microsoft
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
es-la
EX
71.88
74.17
73.17
75.05
74.08
73.64
72.84
XE
75.22
74.70
74.09
74.87
74.47
75.08
73.57
sw
EX
59.96
61.59
59.97
60.55
60.44
60.16
55.86
XE
63.97
68.14
63.51
68.10
66.35
67.91
62.19
fa
EX
52.32
56.44
53.76
51.16
52.71
51.80
51.38
XE
64.64
67.55
64.25
66.21
65.77
66.14
63.45
Table 3: 2026 CHRF++ Scores showing example comparisons between providers for Pivot, Important, and Priority languages. See Tables 15 – 22 for complete scores.
Language
EX/XE
Microsoft
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
id
EX
74.72
74.88
74.15
75.08
74.93
73.92
73.74
XE
72.53
74.33
71.53
73.77
73.27
72.70
71.61
hi
EX
65.62
61.76
59.06
60.34
62.81
61.75
62.42
ha
EX
53.44
51.26
49.12
48.91
49.77
48.21
43.49
rw
EX
45.88
47.87
45.14
49.10
47.74
47.50
33.23
ckb
XE
56.53
57.09
41.84
49.45
46.52
60.66
53.37
Table 4: 2026 CHRF++ Scores showing notable exceptions to overall trends across languages and MT providers. See Tables 15 – 22 for complete scores.
E to X
Microsoft
hi , bn , mr , ta , am, ha , ku, ln , prs
Google
ar , ru , sw , zh , fa , ms , tl , ur , ckb, din, km , kr, lg , ne , om, ps , so , ti-er, ti-et, zu
GPT-5.4
es-la , fr , id , pt-br , my , rw
GPT-5.4 -mini
fr
X to E
Microsoft
es-LA , fr , pt-br , zh , ln
Table 5: Best System and Usability. Bold indicates a usable system, and underline a borderline one.
System
2023
2025
2026
Microsoft (XE)
km
53.70
58.69
60.67
prs
57.44
57.45
63.11
Microsoft (EX)
ps
46.64
37.84
39.47
ln
59.00
58.19
65.59
Google (XE)
ar
69.61
70.87
69.17
so
57.53
37.13
59.39
Table 6: Notable Changes in CHRF++ Scores between 2023, 2025, and 2026 (red indicates drops is quality).
and can you tell me what other symptoms are you having along with this?
Reference
e footi a limta mandolji nyau feere je a don mari fahin na?
Output
Mido waawi wadugo dum, ko dum wadi dum didi dum wadi dum wadi dum wadi dum wadi dum
wadi dum wadi dum.
Claude
—English to Nigerian Fulfulde
Source
These enzymes are expressed extensively in multiple organs, especially in the heart and liver, and are
Appendix
Table 9: Example string repetition errors in GPT-4o and Claude output when translating from English to Nigerian Fulfulde.
Domain
Microsoft
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
English to X
es-LA
CM
32.62
38.80
33.03
45.16
41.44
36.18
34.5
SM
53.90
59.04
55.45
59.10
56.87
57.42
54.61
G
51.16
55.42
53.36
56.25
55.09
53.19
52.09
N
56.19
54.85
59.51
60.63
59.55
58.17
58.67
A
40.83
42.58
41.52
43.89
44.10
44.40
41.51
Appendix
Table 10: Domain BLEU Scores for Spanish (LA) and Farsi. Bold text indicates best system within each specific domain. Legend for domains: Conversational Medical (CM), Scientific Medical (SM), General (G), News (N), Announcements (A).
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
ckb
427 (20%)
362 (17%)
431 (21%)
din
—
598 (28%)
707 (34%)
fuv
—
91 (4%)
558 (27%)
ha
112 (5%)
107 (5%)
111 (5%)
kr
406 (19%)
—
408 (19%)
lg
381 (18%)
383 (18%)
386 (18%)
Appendix
Table 11: GPT Content Filtering Rates (XE only)
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
ckb
28.17/51.77
34.04/58.65
32.95/57.63
din
—
9.35/26.94
9.54/27.20
fuv
—
17.84/37.31
17.43/36.29
ha
34.13/56.36
38.49/60.43
37.00/58.86
kr
11.95/29.64
—
11.64/29.28
lg
31.97/53.59
34.72/56.82
32.58/54.97
Appendix
Table 12: BLEU/CHRF++ Scores for GPT Models with filtered sentences excluded (XE only).
Language
X to English
Microsoft
Gemini
Margin of Error
% Margin of Error
Hindi
4.5298
4.7679
0.5988
14.97%
Dinka
—
1.8453
0.5988
14.97%
Lingala
3.5536
3.5774
0.2932
7.33%
Tigrinya (Eritrean)
3.0774
3.7262
0.2932
7.33%
Appendix
Table 13: 2026 XE average human evaluation scores and margin of error for all seven evaluated sets. See Appendix I for scale used in evaluation.
Language
% Critical Errors (score of 1)
% Usable Sentences (score of 3-5)
Microsoft
Gemini
Microsoft
Gemini
Hindi
0.0/0.0/0.0/2.4
0.0/0.0/0.0/2.4
97.6/95.2/
100.0/100.0/
100.0/95.2
100.0/97.6
Dinka
—
59.5/54.8/
—
19.1/19.1/
52.4/38.1
19.1/33.3
Lingala
7.1
7.1
75.6
81.0
Appendix
Table 14: Proportion of sentences that were rated as having a critical error and the proportion that were considered usable by human evaluators for each language and system. For Dinka and Hindi, where each evaluator had the same set of sentences, the proportions for each evaluator’s responses are shown separately.
Figure 2: E to X BLEU x CHRF++ Scatter Plot for all TICO languages
Figure 3: X to E BLEU x CHRF++ Scatter Plot for all TICO languages
Language
English to X
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
28.71
33.24
31.35
32.37
31.68
30.75
28.36
Chinese
47.95
53.10
50.36
47.88
51.01
47.72
49.45
French
44.15
34.94
41.75
46.61
46.58
42.28
41.87
Hindi
46.12
38.88
36.70
37.57
40.63
40.01
40.24
Appendix
Table 15: 2026 EX BLEU scores. The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
English to X
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
55.08
59.23
57.05
59.32
57.86
57.27
55.64
Chinese
45.74
50.48
47.50
43.74
48.10
42.66
45.89
French
63.64
63.13
62.83
65.74
65.52
63.05
63.02
Hindi
65.62
61.76
59.06
60.34
62.81
61.75
62.42
Appendix
Table 16: 2026 EX CHRF++ scores. The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
X to English
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
44.91
45.36
42.88
44.62
44.42
46.57
40.40
Chinese
36.40
35.00
33.35
35.38
35.21
36.59
33.16
French
45.57
43.87
43.01
43.48
43.21
44.17
41.35
Hindi
53.28
58.67
46.22
53.37
53.62
53.69
49.70
Appendix
Table 17: 2026 XE BLEU scores. The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
X to English
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
68.06
69.17
66.88
69.12
68.78
69.19
66.51
Chinese
62.16
61.87
60.40
62.53
62.35
62.20
60.76
French
64.76
64.06
63.18
63.97
63.68
64.04
62.67
Hindi
73.92
76.79
69.39
74.52
74.29
74.13
72.26
Appendix
Table 18: 2026 XE CHRF++ scores. The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
English to X
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.8744
0.8800
0.8759
0.8830
0.8788
0.8797
0.8718
Chinese
0.8801
0.8882
0.8834
0.8710
0.8843
0.8716
0.8773
French
0.8772
0.8440
0.8692
0.8801
0.8791
0.8703
0.8701
Hindi
0.9038
0.8876
0.8809
0.8863
0.8982
0.8915
0.8956
Appendix
Table 19: 2026 EX BERTScores. The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
X to English
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.7486
0.7416
0.7406
0.7514
0.7506
0.7641
0.7285
Chinese
0.7148
0.6959
-0.5152
0.7098
0.7118
0.7160
0.6920
French
0.6865
0.6627
0.6702
0.6762
0.6744
0.6810
0.6700
Hindi
0.8113
0.8225
-0.7376
0.8118
0.8162
0.8206
0.7948
Appendix
Table 20: 2026 XE BERTScores (rescaled). The best system for each language is in bold.
Language
English to X
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.8485
0.8750
0.8683
0.8764
0.8688
0.8761
0.8649
Chinese
0.8749
0.8953
0.8840
0.8753
0.8862
0.8779
0.8804
French
0.8154
0.8242
0.8199
0.8245
0.8229
0.8239
0.8199
Hindi
0.8076
0.8203
0.8064
0.8061
0.8217
0.8177
0.8148
Appendix
Table 21: 2026 EX COMET. The best system for each language is in bold. Only supported languages are included.
Language
X to English
MS
Google
GPT-4o
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4-mini
Gemini
Claude
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.8725
0.8779
0.8765
0.8788
0.8784
0.8820
0.8716
Chinese
0.8751
0.8765
0.6173
0.8778
0.8781
0.8790
0.8728
French
0.8360
0.8353
0.8352
0.8370
0.8362
0.8367
0.8334
Hindi
0.9070
0.9150
0.4515
0.9121
0.9125
0.9135
0.9075
Appendix
Table 22: 2026 XE COMET. The best system for each language is in bold. Only supported languages are included.
English to X
X to English
Language
Microsoft
Google
Microsoft
Google
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
——Pivot——
Arabic
30.26
25.16
29.15
32.88
44.88
44.87
46.90
49.28
Portuguese (BR)
52.42
47.83
52.27
54.26
54.81
55.33
55.19
57.63
Chinese
52.89
50.24
54.29
54.27
36.46
36.48
37.71
39.56
Appendix
Table 23: BLEU Score Differences between 2023 and 2025 for Microsoft and Google
English to X
X to English
Language
Microsoft
Google
Microsoft
Google
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
——Pivot——
Arabic
57.73
56.41
56.70
59.18
67.74
67.73
69.61
70.87
Portuguese (BR)
72.79
71.12
72.48
74.04
75.43
75.88
75.45
76.79
Chinese
39.76
45.07
48.72
45.33
62.08
62.69
39.76
64.60
Appendix
Table 24: CHRF++ Score Differences between 2023 and 2025 for Microsoft and Google
English to X
X to English
Language
Microsoft
Google
Microsoft
Google
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.8841
0.8375
0.8791
0.8833
0.7661
0.7465
0.7701
0.7987
Portuguese (BR)
0.9363
0.8750
0.9339
0.9521
0.8434
0.8302
0.8248
0.8437
Chinese
0.8930
0.8619
0.8971
0.9450
0.7373
0.7234
0.7271
0.7400
Appendix
Table 25: BERTScore Differences between 2023 and 2025 for Microsoft and Google
English to X
X to English
Language
Microsoft
Google
Microsoft
Google
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
2023
2025
——Pivot——
Arabic
0.8450
0.8253
0.8486
0.8813
0.8710
0.8400
0.8777
0.8891
Portuguese (BR)
0.8978
0.8698
0.8976
0.8962
0.9007
0.8790
0.9002
0.8983
Chinese
0.8824
0.8652
0.8924
0.8910
0.8738
0.8090
0.8755
0.8752
Appendix
Table 26: COMET Score Differences between 2023 and 2025 for Microsoft and Google
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
Machine translation (MT) is increasingly utilized in multilingual crisis communication, yet conventional evaluation does not directly assess whether translated emergency messages preserve their actionability. We introduce SIREN (Situation-aware Index for Response and Emergency ActioNability), a human evaluation framework assessing whether translation choices compromise protective action, directive force, and urgency of the source text. We evaluate SIREN in two complementary settings. At the error level, we apply it to HOPE-annotated Italian--English translations produced by ChatGPT-4o and Google Translate: 31.63% and 48.73% of errors, respectively, compromise actionability, predominantly by affecting the protective action. At the message level, we evaluate English--French translations produced by TranslateGemma-4B and Google Translate, with actionability preserved in 85.34% and 92.67% of translations, respectively. TranslateGemma-4B failures predominantly weaken directive force, whereas Google Translate failures more often compromise protective actions and receive Major impact ratings. These findings show that translation systems can differ not only in how often actionability is lost, but also in the nature and functional impact of these failures. Alongside SIREN, we contribute an English--French crisis-translation resource with human actionability annotations and post-edited reference translations, supporting further research on function-oriented evaluation for crisis communication. Our experimental data is available at https://github.com/mcstaiano/SIREN.
Maria Carmen Staiano, Lifeng Han, Johanna Monti +1
University of Macerata · LUMC & Leiden University · University of Naples “L’Orientale”
It is essential that we communicate with the entirety of an affected population during a crisis, including those who do not speak a region's dominant language(s). Commercial Translation tools offer a tempting solution to broaden access and can provide a lifeline when no other resources are available. However, Emergency response managers often operate in the dark regarding the quality and adequacy of these automated outputs. In this paper, we conduct a nationwide survey of emergency managers to understand their current workflows, perspectives, and operational challenges. We then evaluate commercial translation tools against these needs, shedding light on their utility and offering practical guidance on how and when these tools can be safely used in emergency response.
Jen Wilson, Vipasha Bansal, William D. Lewis
Computational Linguistics Program, University of Washington
Communicating with the public during an emergency entails issuing warning messages promptly. In Europe, it often requires producing them in more than one language. Recent work has shown that language models can be trained to generate warning messages as a crisis unfolds, but the available data covers only English. To fill this gap, we present CrisiLangs, a multilingual extension of CrisiText (an English dataset of crisis events paired with warning messages written according to expert communication guidelines) to Italian, Bulgarian, German, and Greek. Expert native speakers translated the warning messages of 1,000 events drawn from 411 scenarios, for a total of 5,000 event-message pairs across five languages. We test the resource to fine-tune a multilingual model on all five languages jointly, with and without the emergency guidelines in the prompt, and compare it with a zero-shot baseline. The fine-tuned models outperform the baseline on ROUGE-L, BLEU and BERTScore in every language and configuration. In a human preference study, low decoding temperatures receive the most preferences in all five languages and in both configurations, while the effect of the guidelines varies by language.
Giacomo Gonella, Stefano Menini, Marco Guerini
Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy · University of Trento, Italy