Measuring User's Mental Models of Speech Translation in Human-AI Collaboration

Despite remarkable progress in machine translation (MT), non-AI communities have raised growing concerns about MT systems, suggesting a noticeable gap between technical advancement and the needs of real-world users. For instance, while NLP researchers focus on benchmark performance, end users care about ethical concerns, trust, reliability, costs, and more. We argue that listening to various user communities is essential so that research efforts would be directed towards the problems that the communities care about. To this end, we present a large-scale analysis, for the first time, that investigates what four stakeholder communities (AI developers, professional translators, language learners, and language service providers) post about MT technology on social media. To do so, we construct a dataset of 79,286 posts and comments from Reddit, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon from 2019 to 2025, and analyse where these communities disagree, and how and why. Overall, we find that communities often disagree, and even show strong conflicts due to polarised sentiments on topics such as translation quality, efficiency, and reliability. This is because these communities approach these topics differently: the AI community frames them as technical and computational problems, while non-AI (user) communities care more about quality nuances, time savings, user trust, and broader social issues.

Speech translation models are increasingly capable of preserving speech-specific information (e.g., speaker gender, prosody, and emphasis), yet evaluation metrics remain blind to such phenomena. We meta-evaluate both text- and speech-based quality estimation metrics on two contrastive datasets targeting gender agreement and prosody, and find that both fall short, even when given direct access to the speech signal. We then train SpeechCOMET, a family of quality estimation models with speech encoders, and evaluate a state-of-the-art SpeechLLM as a judge. Both match or exceed text-based COMET on standard quality estimation, but neither consistently assesses speech-specific phenomena. We identify three causes: (1) speech-specific features are not reliably preserved in current encoders, (2) models tend to ignore the speech source signal, and (3) quality estimation training data contains too few relevant examples. We release all models and code, and argue that progress requires dedicated speech-specific training data and models that genuinely condition on speech.

Speech-to-speech translation (S2ST) has advanced rapidly, but offline evaluation lacks a unified protocol: studies report non-overlapping metric subsets, preventing direct comparisons. We introduce COMPASS, a unified and reproducible benchmarking framework integrating 46 metrics across eight dimensions, and deploy it on 1,248 model-language configurations from FLEURS and CVSS, spanning cascaded and end-to-end architectures over ten language pairs. Architectures exhibit complementary strengths: best-vs-worst gaps exceed 30% on naturalness and speaker preservation but remain within a few points on translation quality, so single-metric rankings systematically misrepresent system quality. Correlation filtering reduces 46 metrics to 10 per direction, with three axes requiring different metrics across X$\to$EN and EN$\to$X (e.g., TER/UTMOS vs. ChrF++/NISQA-MOS); these subsets preserve rankings (Spearman's $ρ>0.80$) while cutting evaluation time by $\approx 2.5\times$. Human validation across dubbing, podcasts, and medical domains shows standalone MOS predictors fail to predict listener preference, while top domain-specific metrics correlate with human judgment ($ρ\geq 0.90$). We release COMPASS as a foundation for domain-aware S2ST evaluation.