Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task in a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency. We introduce M-GATE (Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency), a benchmark of linguistic proficiency spanning 30 typologically diverse languages from high- to low-resource. M-GATE comprises three tasks: grammatical error detection on linguist-crafted, adversarially selected sentences that turn on hard, language-specific phenomena; round-trip translation of shared English sources across 29 target languages, scored by a three-provider LLM judge panel validated against professional annotators; and a supplementary tokenizer-efficiency measure. We evaluate over 50 models in more than 80 configurations. Fluency and proficiency come apart sharply: models that translate competently sit near chance on the adversarial grammar items, the best reaching a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of only 0.36, and their errors lean systematically toward under-flagging, accepting ungrammatical text rather than raising false alarms. Translation quality closely tracks a language's share of pretraining data (r = 0.86 against log Common Crawl share), producing a steep low-resource penalty that is nonetheless narrowing with successive model releases. Enabling reasoning reliably improves translation, while its effect on error detection is smaller and for some models negative, so the best configuration is task-dependent. To resist contamination, test items are kept private behind a continuously updated public leaderboard, with illustrative examples released (https://m-gate.ai).
Machine-translated benchmarks are widely used to assess the multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet translation errors in these benchmarks remain underexplored, raising concerns about the reliability and comparability of multilingual evaluation. We address two practical gaps: (i) how well automatic MQM-style error spans from LLM judges and a span-aware QE baseline (xCOMET-XXL) match expert human span annotations on benchmark translations, and (ii) how strongly translation errors (as opposed to source-side issues in the English original) explain accuracy drops on translated benchmarks. We find that span agreement is non-trivial on naturally occurring benchmark translations, and that target-side translation errors are consistently associated with measurable, percentage-point drops in translated accuracy even after controlling for English correctness and source-side anomalies.
Klaudia-Doris Thellmann, Bernhard Stadler, Michael Färber +1
Modern translation workflows demand more than semantic equivalence. Users routinely require models to preserve JSON or HTML schemas, honor curated glossaries, disambiguate with provided context, and match prescribed registers, often several at once. Conventional metrics such as BLEU and xCOMET capture semantic fidelity but provide little signal on constraint adherence, while general instruction following benchmarks ignore the cross-lingual nature of translation. We introduce \bench, a benchmark for multilingual translation instruction following covering seven languages, with 4,506 single-constraint and 2,838 multi-constraint items spanning six constraint dimensions and five compositional patterns with instructions issued in all seven languages. Constraints are split into a gating subset verified by deterministic checkers and a continuous subset scored by a rubric-based LLM judge, combined under a multiplicative rule that resists reward hacking. Evaluating 15 models reveals systematic gaps that prior protocols miss: Instruction following scales with size more sharply than translation quality, glossary and structured-format constraints dominate the difficulty gradient, and general instruction following rankings correlate only weakly with translation behavior. Our benchmark are available at https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/Hy-MT2/tree/main/IFMTBench.
Language models are often evaluated as though capabilities demonstrated in English remain equally available when the same content is presented in other languages. Traditional multilingual benchmarks rarely isolate language while holding content, question, reference answer, model, and evaluation unit constant. We define the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap (CLCG) as the reduction in response quality when the same content and question are presented in a target language rather than in English. Using ParallelQA-18, a professionally human-translated parallel corpus, we evaluate five models from five laboratories on a stratified sample of 150 articles across 18 languages (English reference; Portuguese high-resource baseline; 16 targets spanning Joshi et al. 2020 classes 0-4). A within-item design varies only passage language. The primary estimator contrasts English versus pooled target-language Token-F1 micro-means on higher-complexity open-ended questions, with article-cluster bootstrap intervals. The primary pooled CLCG is 0.078 (95% CI 0.072-0.084), about a 17% reduction relative to the English score; the equal-language macro summary is 0.077. Net of Portuguese, the macro gap is 0.016 (95% CI 0.013-0.020). Language-level CLCG is negatively associated with Joshi resource class (rho = -0.594, p = 0.015, n = 16). In blinded paired human evaluations, higher-resource responses are preferred in 61.6% of decisive judgments (estimated preference probability 0.655, 95% CI 0.558-0.741). Capabilities shown in English should not be assumed to transfer equally to other languages; English-centered evaluations may overestimate quality for users of low-resource languages.