Organizations: Laboratory on Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing, Department of Information Science, Ionian University, Ioannou Theotoki 72, 49100 Corfu, Greece · Centre for Literary Translation and Book Policy, Department of Foreign Languages, Translation and Interpreting, Ionian University, Tsirigoti Sq., 49100 Corfu, Greece
Multilingual sentence embeddings are increasingly used to estimate semantic similarity across languages, yet their sensitivity to fine-grained translation errors remains insufficiently understood. This study investigates whether general-purpose multilingual embedding models can distinguish correct English-Greek translations from minimally modified erroneous alternatives. A contrastive dataset was developed from FLORES+ sentence-aligned reference translations and reviewed by two translation experts. It contains 1,850 examples across ten core and five exploratory error categories, covering factual, lexical-semantic, grammatical, relational, referential, and discourse-level phenomena. Five multilingual sentence-embedding models (BGE-M3, Multilingual E5, Multilingual MPNet, LaBSE, and Jina Embeddings v3) were evaluated using cosine similarity between each English source sentence and its correct and erroneous Greek translations. A reference-free COMETKiwi model was also evaluated as an MT quality-estimation baseline. Performance was assessed through contrastive accuracy and score margins for category-specific sensitivity. BGE-M3 achieved the highest accuracy among embedding models at 89.30 percent, while COMETKiwi achieved 94.49 percent. Embedding models detected explicit factual and lexical changes more reliably than tense-and-aspect and pronoun-coreference errors. COMETKiwi improved performance on several difficult categories, including tense and aspect, pronoun and coreference, and semantic-role errors, but showed lower sensitivity to date-and-time errors and underperformed the embedding models on numbers. The results show complementary error-sensitivity profiles: multilingual sentence embeddings provide useful semantic adequacy signals but are better suited as components of broader translation-evaluation frameworks than as standalone metrics.
Table 1: Embedding models and configurations used in the experiments.
Category
Type
Meaning
N
Negation
Core
Changes the polarity or truth conditions of the sentence.
150
Number
Core
Changes a numerical value in the translation.
150
Named entity
Core
Replaces a person, place, organization, or other named entity.
150
Antonym
Core
Replaces a word with one expressing an opposite meaning.
150
Omission
Core
Removes information present in the source sentence.
150
Unsupported addition
Core
Introduces information that is absent from the source.
150
Table 2: Error categories used in the English–Greek contrastive dataset. N denotes the number of contrastive examples in each category.
Statistic
Value
Total contrastive examples
1,850
Unique FLORES+ sentence pairs
1,212
Core error categories
10
Exploratory error categories
5
Core-category examples
1,500
Exploratory-category examples
350
Table 3: Summary statistics of the generated contrastive dataset.
Model
Acc. (%)
Mean Δ
Median Δ
Incorrect
Ties
BGE-M3
89.30
0.0271
0.0155
197
1
Multilingual E5
81.35
0.0095
0.0053
344
1
Multilingual MPNet
88.05
0.0387
0.0180
220
1
LaBSE
87.73
0.0277
0.0198
226
1
Jina Embeddings v3
87.73
0.0363
0.0213
226
1
Table 4: Overall contrastive performance of the evaluated models. Incorrect denotes cases in which the erroneous translation received a higher similarity score than the correct translation; ties denote cases in which both translations received the same similarity score following the numerical tolerance defined in Section 4 .
Figure 1: Overall contrastive accuracy of the five multilingual sentence-embedding models.
Category
BGE-M3
Mult. E5
Mult. MPNet
LaBSE
Jina Emb. v3
Negation
92.67
95.33
90.00
93.33
94.00
Number
96.67
98.00
99.33
98.00
96.67
Named entity
99.33
93.33
99.33
95.33
98.00
Antonym
86.67
80.00
89.33
92.00
85.33
Omission
84.00
81.33
92.67
92.67
86.00
Unsupported addition
95.33
91.33
90.67
97.33
91.33
Table 5: Contrastive accuracy (%) by error category.
Category
BGE-M3
Mult. E5
Mult. MPNet
LaBSE
Jina Emb. v3
Negation
0.0412
0.0149
0.0666
0.0233
0.0483
Number
0.0238
0.0128
0.0456
0.0481
0.0523
Named entity
0.0696
0.0190
0.1129
0.0560
0.0881
Antonym
0.0217
0.0073
0.0315
0.0186
0.0285
Omission
0.0226
0.0077
0.0411
0.0375
0.0361
Unsupported addition
0.0175
0.0055
0.0206
0.0345
0.0205
Table 6: Mean contrastive cosine-similarity margin by error category.
Category
N
Acc. (%)
Mean ΔCK
Negation
150
99.33
0.1051
Number
150
89.33
0.0148
Named entity
150
98.67
0.1130
Antonym
150
96.00
0.0400
Omission
150
99.33
0.1198
Unsupported addition
150
100.00
0.1103
Table 7: Contrastive performance of COMETKiwi by error category. The margin denotes the COMETKiwi score for the correct translation minus that for the erroneous translation and is interpreted only within the COMETKiwi scoring scale.