mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

PEAR: Pairwise Evaluation for Automatic Relative Scoring in Machine Translation

arXiv 2601.18006 ↗First posted 25 Jan 2026cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We present PEAR (Pairwise Evaluation for Automatic Relative Scoring), a supervised quality estimation (QE) metric family that reframes reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation as a graded pairwise comparison. Given a source segment and two candidate translations, PEAR predicts the direction and magnitude of their quality difference. The metrics are trained using pairwise supervision derived from differences in human judgments, with an additional regularization term that encourages sign inversion under candidate order reversal. On the WMT24 meta-evaluation benchmark, PEAR outperforms strictly matched single-candidate QE baselines trained with the same data and backbones, isolating the benefit of the proposed pairwise formulation. Despite using substantially fewer parameters than recent large metrics, PEAR surpasses far larger QE models and reference-based metrics. Our analysis further indicates that PEAR yields a less redundant evaluation signal relative to other top metrics. Finally, we show that PEAR is an effective utility function for minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, reducing pairwise scoring cost at negligible impact.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2026.

Builds on

37 of 61 references.

References · 37

  1. 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,669
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  3. 2016Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs)cited by 3,502
  4. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  5. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  6. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
  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. 2020InfoXLM: An Information-Theoretic Framework for Cross-Lingual Language Model Pre-Trainingcited by 237
  10. 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 207
  11. 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
  12. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 146
25 more
  1. 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
  2. 2021The Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 97
  3. 2024MetricX-24: The Google Submission to the WMT 2024 Metrics Shared Taskcited by 93
  4. 2023Scaling up COMETKIWI: Unbabel-IST 2023 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 88
  5. 2021Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modelingcited by 87
  6. 2023Ties Matter: Meta-Evaluating Modern Metrics with Pairwise Accuracy and Tie Calibrationcited by 74
  7. 2021A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methodscited by 72
  8. 2021Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Paperscited by 71
  9. 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
  10. 2024Navigating the Metrics Maze: Reconciling Score Magnitudes and Accuraciescited by 40
  11. 2018Efficient Online Scalar Annotation with Bounded Supportcited by 27
  12. 2022IndicMT Eval: A Dataset to Meta-Evaluate Machine Translation metrics for Indian Languagescited by 27
  13. 2020Learning to Evaluate Translation Beyond English: BLEURT Submissions to the WMT Metrics 2020 Shared Taskcited by 25
  14. 2024Improving Statistical Significance in Human Evaluation of Automatic Metrics via Soft Pairwise Accuracycited by 25
  15. 2025How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?cited by 23
  16. 2024Guardians of the Machine Translation Meta-Evaluation: Sentinel Metrics Fall In!cited by 21
  17. 2024AI-Assisted Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 20
  18. 2024MT-Ranker: Reference-free machine translation evaluation by inter-system rankingcited by 14
  19. 2019Pairwise Neural Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 11
  20. 2026Pearmut: Human Evaluation of Translation Made Trivialcited by 11
  21. 2024Beyond Correlation: Interpretable Evaluation of Machine Translation Metricscited by 10
  22. 2025Has Machine Translation Evaluation Achieved Human Parity? The Human Reference and the Limits of Progresscited by 10
  23. 2025MetricX-25 and GemSpanEval: Google Translate Submissions to the WMT25 Evaluation Shared Taskcited by 10
  24. 2025Remedy: Learning Machine Translation Evaluation from Human Preferences with Reward Modelingcited by 9
  25. 2025COMET-poly: Machine Translation Metric Grounded in Other Candidatescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.