Contrastive ESA: Human Evaluation of Multiple Translations at Once

Error Span Detection (ESD) is a crucial subtask in Machine Translation (MT) evaluation, aiming to identify the location and severity of translation errors. While fine-tuning models on human-annotated data improves ESD performance, acquiring such data is expensive and prone to inconsistencies among annotators. To address this, we propose a novel self-evolution framework based on Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding, named Iterative MBR Distillation for ESD, which eliminates the reliance on human annotations by leveraging an off-the-shelf LLM to generate pseudo-labels. Extensive experiments on the WMT Metrics Shared Task datasets demonstrate that models trained solely on these self-generated pseudo-labels outperform both unadapted base model and supervised baselines trained on human annotations at the system and span levels, while maintaining competitive sentence-level performance.

Automatic evaluation metrics are central to the development of machine translation systems, yet their robustness under domain shift remains unclear. Most metrics are developed on the Workshop on Machine Translation (WMT) benchmarks, raising concerns about their robustness to unseen domains. Prior studies that analyze unseen domains vary translation systems, annotators, or evaluation conditions, confounding domain effects with human annotation noise. To address these biases, we introduce a systematic multi-annotator Cross-Domain Error-Span-Annotation dataset (CD-ESA), comprising 18.8k human error span annotations across three language pairs, where we fix annotators within each language pair and evaluate translations of the same six translation systems across one seen news domain and two unseen technical domains. Using this dataset, we first find that automatic metrics appear surprisingly robust to domain-shifts at the segment level (up to 0.69 agreement), but this robustness largely disappears once we account for human label variation. Averaging annotations increases inter-annotator agreement by up to +0.11. Metrics struggle on the unseen chemical domain compared to humans (inter-annotator agreement of 0.78-0.83 vs. 0.96). We recommend comparing metric-human agreement against inter-annotator agreement, rather than comparing raw metric-human agreement alone, when evaluating across different domains.

Low-latency simultaneous speech-to-speech translation must keep pace with ongoing speech while preserving key information. To meet these demands, systems use segmentation, reformulation and condensation to reorganize and rephrase information. However, metrics developed for text translation, including BLEU and COMET, may not consistently distinguish faithful adaptations from semantic errors. We propose EviSI, a large language model evaluation agent combining Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) with criteria developed with professional interpreters. Shared source evidence guides assessment across four dimensions: Anchor, Event, Logic and Fluency. Verified errors are deduplicated before deterministic scoring. On human-rated English to Chinese and Chinese to English data, EviSI recovers the aggregate English to Chinese human system ranking. Mean within-dataset Kendall correlations for system rankings reach 0.707 and 0.467, respectively, exceeding evaluated BLEU and COMET baselines. A multilingual extension to five directions without human ratings retains the dimensions and scoring rule, showing positive system ranking correlations with COMET throughout.