Is Textual Similarity Invariant under Machine Translation? Evidence Based on the Political Manifesto Corpus

Terminology evaluation in machine translation (MT) usually assumes a single correct target form per source term. However, human translators routinely introduce variation that current metrics penalize as inconsistency. We examine how to account for this variation in document-level MT evaluation of English-French scientific translation, combining glossary-based accuracy, translation consistency, and a new cross-term variation (CTV) diagnostic measure that tests whether variation relationships are preserved across languages. Based on analyses of two parallel corpora, translated by four MT systems, we find that (1) MT systems generate less target-side variation than human translators; (2) transfer patterns strongly depend on the variation type; (3) consistency rankings vary with the choice of metric; and (4) constraining MT with a glossary improves accuracy and consistency but degrades CTV by suppressing valid variation. We argue for variation-aware evaluation that conditions consistency penalties on whether target-side variation mirrors source-side variation.

We investigate whether simple transformations can translate representations across heterogeneous text embedding models. Understanding how independently trained models organize semantic information is an enabler for AI-to-AI latent communication without decoding into human-readable text. Focusing on lightweight translators such as linear mappings, we test the literature hypothesis of latent universality in a realistic text setting beyond simplified benchmarks. Across nine embedding models differing in architecture, pooling strategy, and training objective, we evaluate compatibility using CKA, downstream transfer, fidelity, and retrieval. Simple translators recover meaningful shared structure and support transfer for some compatible pairs, but fail sharply for others. Compatibility depends jointly on architecture, training objective, pooling, and data distribution. Overall, the results show that heterogeneous embedding spaces are not universally related by simple mappings as often suggested in some literature.

When a text is translated, does the translation retain the complexity of the original? We introduce ComplexityMT, a new challenge for assessing how text complexity and machine translation interact with and influence each other, using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels as the measure of text complexity. Across six languages, including Arabic, Dutch, English, French, Hindi, and Russian, we evaluate three open-weight models, one closed model, and a commercial machine translation system on two tasks: i) correlation of CEFR with translation difficulty, and ii) shifts in CEFR levels of the source texts. Our experiments show that higher CEFR levels make texts more difficult to translate, and that machine translation shifts the CEFR level of the target text compared to the original source, for most languages. These findings provide new insights for researchers and practitioners working on multilingual pedagogical content generation and machine translation difficulty estimation.