In the Blind: Building Pseudo-References for MT Evaluation

Different error types in machine translation require different evidence. Whether meaning is preserved can be judged only against the source, while whether the target is well-formed, or whether it names one entity consistently, can be judged from the target alone. We present FACET, our reference-free submission to the WMT26 Automated Translation Quality Evaluation Task, which decomposes evaluation into Fluency, Accuracy, and Consistency passes and gives each pass only the context its error type requires. A single fixed model is prompted three times, and the merged error spans yield the three task outputs, error spans, quality scores, and error-free labels, with no trained components. We also submit FACET-C, which omits the Consistency pass. Without gold labels, we characterize the predictions of FACET. Its system rankings place post-edited human translation first, and the Consistency pass changes about a tenth of segment scores while leaving the ranking nearly unchanged.

Reference-based metrics remain the standard choice in machine translation evaluation, partly because quality estimation methods often correlate less well with human judgments. As a result, source-free, reference-based evaluation has become the practical norm, even though it is unfaithful to the definition of translation adequacy and unfair to systems whose outputs preserve the source meaning while differing from the reference. This paper argues that adequacy must be judged with respect to the source. A reference is only one possible rendering of the source and may introduce bias, under-specification, or errors. We further argue that source-reference-hypothesis evaluation is fair only when the judge treats the reference as auxiliary evidence rather than as the primary standard. Otherwise, even source-aware evaluation can reduce adequacy to preference towards reference. We show the existing hybrid metrics are highly reliant on reference compared to source. Our argument is not that all automatic MT metrics fail to use the source. Rather, we argue that any evaluation protocol that removes the source, or allows the reference to dominate the source, is structurally incomplete for adequacy evaluation. However, existing MT papers generally prefer reference-based metrics and use QE metrics only when reference is unavailable. We therefore call for QE to be reframed as a primary approach to source-grounded adequacy evaluation, rather than as a fallback motivated by missing references. We further call for hybrid metrics whose designs explicitly prioritize source--hypothesis faithfulness while using references only as complementary evidence.

How can a monolingual English speaker determine whether an automatic translation in French is good enough to be shared? Existing MT error detection and quality estimation (QE) techniques do not address this practical scenario. We introduce AskQE, a question generation and answering framework designed to detect critical MT errors and provide actionable feedback, helping users decide whether to accept or reject MT outputs even without the knowledge of the target language. Using ContraTICO, a dataset of contrastive synthetic MT errors in the COVID-19 domain, we explore design choices for AskQE and develop an optimized version relying on LLaMA-3 70B and entailed facts to guide question generation. We evaluate the resulting system on the BioMQM dataset of naturally occurring MT errors, where AskQE has higher Kendall's Tau correlation and decision accuracy with human ratings compared to other QE metrics.