mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

HiMATE: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation

arXiv 2505.16281 ↗First posted 22 May 2025cs.CLcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

The advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) enables flexible and interpretable automatic evaluations. In the field of machine translation evaluation, utilizing LLMs with translation error annotations based on Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) yields more human-aligned judgments. However, current LLM-based evaluation methods still face challenges in accurately identifying error spans and assessing their severity. In this paper, we propose HiMATE, a Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation. We argue that existing approaches inadequately exploit the fine-grained structural and semantic information within the MQM hierarchy. To address this, we develop a hierarchical multi-agent system grounded in the MQM error typology, enabling granular evaluation of subtype errors. Two key strategies are incorporated to further mitigate systemic hallucinations within the framework: the utilization of the model's self-reflection capability and the facilitation of agent discussion involving asymmetric information. Empirically, HiMATE outperforms competitive baselines across different datasets in conducting human-aligned evaluations. Further analyses underscore its significant advantage in error span detection and severity assessment, achieving an average F1-score improvement of 89% over the best-performing baseline. We make our code and data publicly available at https://github.com/nlp2ct-shijie/HiMATE.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 17 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2025.

Builds on

17 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation28 Mar
  2. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate14 Aug

Other references · 15

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  3. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  4. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  5. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
  6. 2023How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 348
  7. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  8. 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 265
  9. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 146
  10. 2023The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 95
  11. 2024MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluatorscited by 22
  12. 2022Toward Human-Like Evaluation for Natural Language Generation with Error Analysiscited by 18
3 more
  1. 2024Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluationcited by 15
  2. 2022RoBLEURT Submission for the WMT2021 Metrics Taskcited by 9
  3. 2021Difficulty-Aware Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024M-MAD: Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate for Advanced Machine Translation Evaluation
  2. 2025MAATS: A Multi-Agent Automated Translation System Based on MQM Evaluation
  3. 2026Beyond Literal Mapping: Benchmarking and Improving Non-Literal Translation Evaluation
  4. 2025LLMs Are Not Scorers: Rethinking MT Evaluation with Generation-Based Methods
  5. 2024Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate
  6. 2026Diagnose, Then Repair: A Two-Stage MQM-Guided Post-Editing Framework for Domain-Specific Machine Translation
  7. 2023Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models
  8. 2025DITING: A Multi-Agent Evaluation Framework for Benchmarking Web Novel Translation