Large-scale machine-translation (MT) systems are typically evaluated on random samples from a corpus whose distributional composition is an artifact of how it was assembled. Such a sample inherits the phenomena the collection happens to contain rather than the full space a system must handle, spanning rule-governed conventions (terminology, punctuation, currency formatting) and context-dependent phenomena (tone, honorifics, document-level coherence), and thus provides no coverage guarantee for assessing robustness. We propose TACTICS (Taxonomy-Aware Coverage-opTimized Intelligent Corpus Sampling), which recasts coverage as an explicit objective. TACTICS induces a hierarchical taxonomy from a locale style guide, classifies segments against it, and selects a fixed-budget subset jointly optimizing coverage of rare categories, document-level coherence, and distributional fidelity to the full corpus. Applied to MT evaluation across four translation directions, TACTICS improves coverage of rare categories over lexical and embedding-based selection. By targeting the phenomena that separate systems, TACTICS makes a fixed evaluation budget go further, recovering the true system ranking from far fewer segments than random sampling wherever a real quality gap exists and never signaling a difference where none exists.
Terminology evaluation in machine translation (MT) usually assumes a single correct target form per source term. However, human translators routinely introduce variation that current metrics penalize as inconsistency. We examine how to account for this variation in document-level MT evaluation of English-French scientific translation, combining glossary-based accuracy, translation consistency, and a new cross-term variation (CTV) diagnostic measure that tests whether variation relationships are preserved across languages. Based on analyses of two parallel corpora, translated by four MT systems, we find that (1) MT systems generate less target-side variation than human translators; (2) transfer patterns strongly depend on the variation type; (3) consistency rankings vary with the choice of metric; and (4) constraining MT with a glossary improves accuracy and consistency but degrades CTV by suppressing valid variation. We argue for variation-aware evaluation that conditions consistency penalties on whether target-side variation mirrors source-side variation.
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.
For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, vulnerable to reward-hacking, and provide unactionable assessments. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking objective progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.