Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study challenges the foundational assumption of document-level machine translation evaluation by demonstrating that expert annotators fail to distinguish between coherent and incoherent documents, even when presented with full text. The research reveals that current metrics and ranking systems may be measuring protocol artifacts rather than true translation quality, rendering significant investments in these methodologies potentially ineffective.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Blindness of Document-Level Translation Evaluation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.05949v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Document-level machine translation (MT) evaluation extends segment-level protocols by presenting full documents to annotators, on the assumption that such presentation elicits document-level judgments. We test this assumption with a counterfactual condition (MIX) in which each document combines segments drawn from different systems, preserving document-level presentation while breaking cross-segment consistency. Across 18,420 expert Englis-to-Korean annotations and 14 automatic metrics, scores, system rankings, and error annotations are statistically equivalent between coherent and incoherent documents. Perception does not explain this: shown matched passages, raters identify the coherent one as the work of a single translator in 87.3% of trials. Document presentation does change how annotators work, but that change does not reach the recorded output. What is blind is the protocol, not the annotator. The concern is not that scores fall short, but that the resources invested in document-level systems, metrics, and annotation may not be measuring what they are intended to measure.

Abstract:Document-level machine translation (MT) evaluation extends segment-level protocols by presenting full documents to annotators, on the assumption that such presentation elicits document-level judgments. We test this assumption with a counterfactual condition (MIX) in which each document combines segments drawn from different systems, preserving document-level presentation while breaking cross-segment consistency. Across 18,420 expert Englis-to-Korean annotations and 14 automatic metrics, scores, system rankings, and error annotations are statistically equivalent between coherent and incoherent documents. Perception does not explain this: shown matched passages, raters identify the coherent one as the work of a single translator in 87.3% of trials. Document presentation does change how annotators work, but that change does not reach the recorded output. What is blind is the protocol, not the annotator. The concern is not that scores fall short, but that the resources invested in document-level systems, metrics, and annotation may not be measuring what they are intended to measure.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2609.05949 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.05949v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05949 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words

Related coverage