mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Lost in the Source Language: How Large Language Models Evaluate the Quality of Machine Translation

arXiv 2401.06568 ↗First posted 12 Jan 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage source and reference data in machine translation evaluation task, aiming to better understand the mechanisms behind their remarkable performance in this task. We design the controlled experiments across various input modes and model types, and employ both coarse-grained and fine-grained prompts to discern the utility of source versus reference information. We find that reference information significantly enhances the evaluation accuracy, while surprisingly, source information sometimes is counterproductive, indicating LLMs' inability to fully leverage the cross-lingual capability when evaluating translations. Further analysis of the fine-grained evaluation and fine-tuning experiments show similar results. These findings also suggest a potential research direction for LLMs that fully exploits the cross-lingual capability of LLMs to achieve better performance in machine translation evaluation tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2024.

Builds on

26 of 44 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,548
  6. 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
  7. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  8. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  9. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  10. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  11. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 742
  12. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
14 more
  1. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 422
  2. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
  3. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 418
  4. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  5. 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 265
  6. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 146
  7. 2018Achieving Human Parity on Automatic Chinese to English News Translationcited by 119
  8. 2020Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation in Many Languages via Zero-Shot Paraphrasingcited by 115
  9. 2023The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"cited by 98
  10. 2023The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 95
  11. 2023Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Modelscited by 87
  12. 2021A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methodscited by 72
  13. 2022UniTE: Unified Translation Evaluationcited by 28
  14. 2023BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Trainingcited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 8; 2026: 5.

16 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
  2. 2024MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluatorscited by 22
  3. 2025When LLMs Struggle: Reference-less Translation Evaluation for Low-resource Languagescited by 7
  4. 2024What do Large Language Models Need for Machine Translation Evaluation?cited by 6
  5. 2026MMTIT-Bench: A Multilingual and Multi-Scenario Benchmark with Cognition-Perception-Reasoning Guided Text-Image Machine Translationcited by 4
  6. 2025An LLM-as-a-judge Approach for Scalable Gender-Neutral Translation Evaluationcited by 2
  7. 2025How Important is `Perfect' English for Machine Translation Prompts?cited by 2
  8. 2025Generating Medically-Informed Explanations for Depression Detection using LLMscited by 1
  9. 2025TranslationCorrect: A Unified Framework for Machine Translation Post-Editing with Predictive Error Assistancecited by 1
  10. 2025Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Error Span Detection in Reference-Free Automatic Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 1
  11. 2026Quantifying the Impact of Translation Errors on Multilingual LLM Evaluationcited by 1
  12. 2025LLMs Are Not Scorers: Rethinking MT Evaluation with Generation-Based Methodscited by 0
4 more
  1. 2025Simple and Effective Baselines for Code Summarisation Evaluationcited by 0
  2. 2026To Write or to Automate Linguistic Prompts, That Is the Questioncited by 0
  3. 2026Source-Free MT Evaluation Is Not MT Evaluationcited by 0
  4. 2026EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpretingcited by 0