Rubric-Aligned Disentangled Evaluation of Human Simultaneous Interpreting

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.

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Rubric-based evaluation is a promising paradigm for judging large language model (LLM) outputs, yet self-generated rubrics lag human-annotated criteria on hard instances. We argue this discriminative gap reflects an objective mismatch: self-generated rubrics describe good responses, whereas effective criteria must discriminate between close candidates. To close this gap, we introduce SVR (Support Vector Rubrics), a framework that recasts rubric construction as max-margin boundary learning over preference data. SVR mines contrastive features from preference pairs into a rubric bank, learns a prompt-conditioned selector together with global rubric weights, and iteratively refines the bank through support-pair selection and adversarial probing of hard negatives. At inference, given only the prompt, SVR retrieves the top-rubrics from the bank and scores responses. On RubricBench, SVR narrows the gap to human reference rubrics from 24.1 to 0.3 points and outperforms strong self-rubric and judge baselines, and the learned bank transfers across judges without retraining. On RewardBench 1&2, and RM-Bench, it remains competitive with dedicated reward models, demonstrating broader reward modeling capability. Overall, boundary-defining rubrics offer a principled route to closing the discriminative gap in LLM evaluation.