COMET-poly: Machine Translation Metric Grounded in Other Candidates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated metrics for machine translation attempt to replicate human judgment. Unlike humans, who often assess a translation in the context of multiple alternatives, these metrics typically consider only the source sentence and a single translation. This discrepancy in the evaluation setup may negatively impact the performance of automated metrics. We propose two automated metrics that incorporate additional information beyond the single translation. COMET-polycand uses alternative translations of the same source sentence to compare and contrast with the translation at hand, thereby providing a more informed assessment of its quality. COMET-polyic, inspired by retrieval-based in-context learning, takes in translations of similar source texts along with their human-labeled quality scores to guide the evaluation. We find that including a single additional translation in COMET-polycand improves the segment-level metric performance (0.079 to 0.118 Kendall's tau-b correlation), with further gains when more translations are added. Incorporating retrieved examples in COMET-polyic yields similar improvements (0.079 to 0.116 Kendall's tau-b correlation). We release our models publicly.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2025.
Builds on
15 of 24 references.
References · 15
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,907
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2020Making Monolingual Sentence Embeddings Multilingual using Knowledge Distillationcited by 591
- 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 416
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
- 2018RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generationcited by 67
- 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
- 2024Fine-Tuned Machine Translation Metrics Struggle in Unseen Domainscited by 21
- 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 20
3 more
- 2024MT-Ranker: Reference-free machine translation evaluation by inter-system rankingcited by 14
- 2024Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metricscited by 7
- 2024Quality Estimation with k-nearest Neighbors and Automatic Evaluation for Model-specific Quality Estimationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.