mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Non-Linear Scoring Model for Translation Quality Evaluation

arXiv 2511.13467 ↗First posted 17 Nov 2025cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Analytic Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE), based on Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), traditionally uses a linear error-to-penalty scale calibrated to a reference sample of 1000-2000 words. However, linear extrapolation biases judgment on samples of different sizes, over-penalizing short samples and under-penalizing long ones, producing misalignment with expert intuition. Building on the Multi-Range framework, this paper presents a calibrated, non-linear scoring model that better reflects how human content consumers perceive translation quality across samples of varying length. Empirical data from three large-scale enterprise environments shows that acceptable error counts grow logarithmically, not linearly, with sample size. Psychophysical and cognitive evidence, including the Weber-Fechner law and Cognitive Load Theory, supports this premise by explaining why the perceptual impact of additional errors diminishes while the cognitive burden grows with scale. We propose a two-parameter model E(x) = a * ln(1 + b * x), a, b > 0, anchored to a reference tolerance and calibrated from two tolerance points using a one-dimensional root-finding step. The model yields an explicit interval within which the linear approximation stays within +/-20 percent relative error and integrates into existing evaluation workflows with only a dynamic tolerance function added. The approach improves interpretability, fairness, and inter-rater reliability across both human and AI-generated translations. By operationalizing a perceptually valid scoring paradigm, it advances translation quality evaluation toward more accurate and scalable assessment. The model also provides a stronger basis for AI-based document-level evaluation aligned with human judgment. Implementation considerations for CAT/LQA systems and implications for human and AI-generated text evaluation are discussed.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Nov 2025.

Builds on

7 of 44 references.

References · 7

  1. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  2. 2022Embarrassingly Easy Document-Level MT Metrics: How to Convert Any Pretrained Metric Into a Document-Level Metriccited by 56
  3. 2021HOPE: A Task-Oriented and Human-Centric Evaluation Framework Using Professional Post-Editing Towards More Effective MT Evaluationcited by 18
  4. 2021Measuring Uncertainty in Translation Quality Evaluation (TQE)cited by 16
  5. 2024The Multi-Range Theory of Translation Quality Measurement: MQM scoring models and Statistical Quality Controlcited by 9
  6. 2023Neural Machine Translation of Clinical Text: An Empirical Investigation into Multilingual Pre-Trained Language Models and Transfer-Learningcited by 8
  7. 2021On User Interfaces for Large-Scale Document-Level Human Evaluation of Machine Translation Outputscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.