When Opposite Premises Translate Identically: A Source-Conditioned Diagnostic for Multilingual Commonsense Items

A standard pipeline for symbolic reasoning over natural-language problems translates them into first-order logic and invokes a theorem prover. The translation step is the bottleneck: swap "every" for "some" and every inference that follows is corrupted. Yet today's metrics often score more broken translations higher than less broken ones, because BLEU, BERTScore, and Smatch++ reward surface overlap that the worst errors happen to preserve. We introduce SIV, which derives two kinds of probes from the target formula and uses a theorem prover to verify the candidate translation against each. Positive probes are statements the candidate must entail, which detect translations that drop content; contrastive probes are statements the candidate must not entail, which detect translations that assert more than the original. On a controlled pool of perturbed FOLIO translations, the severity of the error accounts for 80% of SIV's score variance, compared with at most 17% for any prior metric. Across six error classes on a disjoint pool, SIV scores the reference above the perturbed candidate in over 99% of pairs. Because each probe is labeled with what it tests, the failure pattern also supplies a labeled error trace, recovering the perturbation class at macro-F1 0.638, nearly double the score-only baseline. On 434 expert-audited real LLM translations, SIV attains the top AUC, uniquely detects and grades expert-labeled major errors, and abstains, rather than mis-scoring, on out-of-vocabulary translations.

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.

Multilingual benchmarks guide the development of frontier models. Yet multilingual evaluations reported by frontier models are structured similar to popular reasoning and knowledge benchmarks, but across many languages. We show such benchmarks, and consequently multilingual evaluations, measure mathematical reasoning and factual recall, not multilingual proficiency. For example, thinking variants dramatically outperform instruct variants on these benchmarks, yet often perform worse on real-world multilingual tasks, such as LMArena. We propose a simple alternative: evaluate multilingual capability via round-trip translation. Given text in a source language, translate it to a target language and back; semantic gaps between the original and result expose failures in multilingual generation capabilities. Round-trip translation correlates almost perfectly (\r{ho} = 0.94) with user ratings on LMArena with our benchmark, requires no human reference translations, and does not require a more capable multilingual judge than tested models. Lastly, we introduce Lost in Translation (LiT), a challenging round-trip translation benchmark spanning widely spoken languages worldwide, for realistic evaluation of multilingual frontier models.