mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LQM: Linguistically Motivated Multidimensional Quality Metrics for Machine Translation

arXiv 2604.18490 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing MT evaluation frameworks, including automatic metrics and human evaluation schemes such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are largely language-agnostic. However, they often fail to capture dialect- and culture-specific errors in diglossic languages (e.g., Arabic), where translation failures stem from mismatches in language variety, content coverage, and pragmatic appropriateness rather than surface form alone.We introduce LQM: Linguistically Motivated Multidimensional Quality Metrics for MT. LQM is a hierarchical error taxonomy for diagnosing MT errors through six linguistically grounded levels: sociolinguistics, pragmatics, semantics, morphosyntax, orthography, and graphetics (Figure 1). We construct a bidirectional parallel corpus of 3,850 sentences (550 per variety) spanning seven Arabic dialects (Egyptian, Emirati, Jordanian, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Palestinian, and Yemeni), derived from conversational, culturally rich content. We evaluate six LLMs in a zero-shot setting and conduct expert span-level human annotation using LQM, producing 6,113 labeled error spans across 3,495 unique erroneous sentences, along with severity-weighted quality scores. We complement this analysis with an automatic metric (spBLEU). Though validated here on Arabic, LQM is a language-agnostic framework designed to be easily applied to or adapted for other languages. LQM annotated errors data, prompts, and annotation guidelines are publicly available at https://github.com/UBC-NLP/LQM_MT.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

Builds on

17 of 64 references.

References · 17

  1. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  2. 2021The FLORES-101 Evaluation Benchmark for Low-Resource and Multilingual Machine Translationcited by 560
  3. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  4. 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 265
  5. 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 146
  6. 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
  7. 2023Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editingcited by 56
  8. 2023Benchmarking Machine Translation with Cultural Awarenesscited by 53
  9. 2025MT-R1-Zero: Advancing LLM-based Machine Translation via R1-Zero-like Reinforcement Learningcited by 48
  10. 2024Improving Machine Translation with Human Feedback: An Exploration of Quality Estimation as a Reward Modelcited by 33
  11. 2024DRT: Deep Reasoning Translation via Long Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 29
  12. 2024NADI 2024: The Fifth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Taskcited by 23
5 more
  1. 2024MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluatorscited by 22
  2. 2024Casablanca: Data and Models for Multidialectal Arabic Speech Recognitioncited by 20
  3. 2023TARJAMAT: Evaluation of Bard and ChatGPT on Machine Translation of Ten Arabic Varietiescited by 16
  4. 2020Correct Me If You Can: Learning from Error Corrections and Markingscited by 11
  5. 2025Are Large Reasoning Models Good Translation Evaluators? Analysis and Performance Boostcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.