mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Estimating Machine Translation Difficulty

arXiv 2508.10175 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2025cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine translation quality has steadily improved over the years, achieving near-perfect translations in recent benchmarks. These high-quality outputs make it difficult to distinguish between state-of-the-art models and to identify areas for future improvement. In this context, automatically identifying texts where machine translation systems struggle holds promise for developing more discriminative evaluations and guiding future research. In this work, we address this gap by formalizing the task of translation difficulty estimation, defining a text's difficulty based on the expected quality of its translations. We introduce a new metric to evaluate difficulty estimators and use it to assess both baselines and novel approaches. Finally, we demonstrate the practical utility of difficulty estimators by using them to construct more challenging benchmarks for machine translation. Our results show that dedicated models outperform both heuristic-based methods and LLM-as-a-judge approaches, with Sentinel-src achieving the best performance. Thus, we release two improved models for difficulty estimation, Sentinel-src-24 and Sentinel-src-25, which can be used to scan large collections of texts and select those most likely to challenge contemporary machine translation systems.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

Builds on

31 of 57 references.

References · 31

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
  4. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  5. 2017BranchyNet: Fast Inference via Early Exiting from Deep Neural Networkscited by 596
  6. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  7. 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
  8. 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 265
  9. 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 243
  10. 2024Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Taskscited by 206
  11. 2019Competence-based Curriculum Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 202
  12. 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
19 more
  1. 2020The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Model and Instance Complexitiescited by 126
  2. 2023Ties Matter: Meta-Evaluating Modern Metrics with Pairwise Accuracy and Tie Calibrationcited by 74
  3. 2024MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixturescited by 74
  4. 2021A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methodscited by 72
  5. 2017Curriculum Learning and Minibatch Bucketing in Neural Machine Translationcited by 63
  6. 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
  7. 2020Norm-Based Curriculum Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 60
  8. 2018An Empirical Exploration of Curriculum Learning for Neural Machine Translationcited by 58
  9. 2020MLQE-PE: A Multilingual Quality Estimation and Post-Editing Datasetcited by 47
  10. 2020It's Easier to Translate out of English than into it: Measuring Neural Translation Difficulty by Cross-Mutual Informationcited by 26
  11. 2025How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?cited by 23
  12. 2024Guardians of the Machine Translation Meta-Evaluation: Sentinel Metrics Fall In!cited by 21
  13. 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 20
  14. 2024Finding Replicable Human Evaluations via Stable Ranking Probabilitycited by 13
  15. 2025Has Machine Translation Evaluation Achieved Human Parity? The Human Reference and the Limits of Progresscited by 10
  16. 2021Difficulty-Aware Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 6
  17. 2024MixEval-X: Any-to-Any Evaluations from Real-World Data Mixturescited by 6
  18. 2024Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Samplingcited by 4
  19. 2021Variance-Aware Machine Translation Test Setscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

6 papers.