# Beyond Correlation: Interpretable Evaluation of Machine Translation Metrics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05183 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05183/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 39 of its 73 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 39)

- [Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02116/) (2019)
- [Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.07909/) (2015)
- [mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11934/) (2020)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04672/) (2022)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04696/) (2020)
- [COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.09025/) (2020)
- [Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.10959/) (2018)
- [The FLORES-101 Evaluation Benchmark for Low-Resource and Multilingual Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03193/) (2021)
- [Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08998/) (2023)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14478/) (2021)
- [xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10482/) (2023)
- [InfoXLM: An Information-Theoretic Framework for Cross-Lingual Language Model Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.07834/) (2020)
- [CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06243/) (2022)
- [Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17733/) (2024)
- [Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06264/) (2020)
- [GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13988/) (2023)
- [Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.10283/) (2020)
- [High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09388/) (2021)
- [Rethinking embedding coupling in pre-trained language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12821/) (2020)
- [Learning Compact Metrics for MT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.06341/) (2021)
- [Scaling up COMETKIWI: Unbabel-IST 2023 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11925/) (2023)
- [Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.00572/) (2021)
- [Ties Matter: Meta-Evaluating Modern Metrics with Pairwise Accuracy and Tie Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14324/) (2023)
- [Sampling-Based Approximations to Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.04718/) (2021)
- [Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11580/) (2024)
- [MLQE-PE: A Multilingual Quality Estimation and Post-Editing Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04480/) (2020)
- [DEMETR: Diagnosing Evaluation Metrics for Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13746/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Towards Cross-Cultural Machine Translation with Retrieval-Augmented Generation from Multilingual Knowledge Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14057/) (2024)
- [Has Machine Translation Evaluation Achieved Human Parity? The Human Reference and the Limits of Progress](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19571/) (2025)
- [LLMs Lost in Translation: M-ALERT uncovers Cross-Linguistic Safety Inconsistencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15035/) (2024)
- [MAATS: A Multi-Agent Automated Translation System Based on MQM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14848/) (2025)
- [A Dual-Perspective NLG Meta-Evaluation Framework with Automatic Benchmark and Better Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12052/) (2025)
- [PEAR: Pairwise Evaluation for Automatic Relative Scoring in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18006/) (2026)
- [Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26638/) (2026)
- [Evaluating Explainable AI Attribution Methods in Neural Machine Translation via Attention-Guided Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11342/) (2026)
- [Span-Level Machine Translation Meta-Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.19921/) (2026)
- [BaatCheet: A Multilingual Corpus for Dialogue Translation in Indian Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33296/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Machine Translation (MT) evaluation metrics assess translation quality automatically. Recently, researchers have employed MT metrics for various new use cases, such as data filtering and translation re-ranking. However, most MT metrics return assessments as scalar scores that are difficult to interpret, posing a challenge to making informed design choices. Moreover, MT metrics' capabilities have historically been evaluated using correlation with human judgment, which, despite its efficacy, falls short of providing intuitive insights into metric performance, especially in terms of new metric use cases. To address these issues, we introduce an interpretable evaluation framework for MT metrics. Within this framework, we evaluate metrics in two scenarios that serve as proxies for the data filtering and translation re-ranking use cases. Furthermore, by measuring the performance of MT metrics using Precision, Recall, and F-score, we offer clearer insights into their capabilities than correlation with human judgments. Finally, we raise concerns regarding the reliability of manually curated data following the Direct Assessments+Scalar Quality Metrics (DA+SQM) guidelines, reporting a notably low agreement with Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) annotations.