The Blindness of Document-Level Translation Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Document-level machine translation (MT) evaluation extends segment-level protocols by presenting full documents to annotators, on the assumption that such presentation elicits document-level judgments. We test this assumption with a counterfactual condition (MIX) in which each document combines segments drawn from different systems, preserving document-level presentation while breaking cross-segment consistency. Across 18,420 expert Englis-to-Korean annotations and 14 automatic metrics, scores, system rankings, and error annotations are statistically equivalent between coherent and incoherent documents. Perception does not explain this: shown matched passages, raters identify the coherent one as the work of a single translator in 87.3% of trials. Document presentation does change how annotators work, but that change does not reach the recorded output. What is blind is the protocol, not the annotator. The concern is not that scores fall short, but that the resources invested in document-level systems, metrics, and annotation may not be measuring what they are intended to measure.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 56 references.
References · 18
- 2020Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,028
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
- 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 260
- 2023GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4cited by 143
- 2018Has Machine Translation Achieved Human Parity? A Case for Document-level Evaluationcited by 88
- 2023Scaling up COMETKIWI: Unbabel-IST 2023 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 88
- 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
- 2021BlonDe: An Automatic Evaluation Metric for Document-level Machine Translationcited by 58
- 2022Embarrassingly Easy Document-Level MT Metrics: How to Convert Any Pretrained Metric Into a Document-Level Metriccited by 56
- 2021When Does Translation Require Context? A Data-driven, Multilingual Explorationcited by 36
- 2025How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?cited by 23
- 2020Reassessing Claims of Human Parity and Super-Human Performance in Machine Translation at WMT 2019cited by 20
6 more
- 2026Pearmut: Human Evaluation of Translation Made Trivialcited by 11
- 2024Fine-Grained and Multi-Dimensional Metrics for Document-Level Machine Translationcited by 10
- 2018Automatic Reference-Based Evaluation of Pronoun Translation Misses the Pointcited by 6
- 2025Extending Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation to Book-Length Documentscited by 6
- 2024Context-Aware or Context-Insensitive? Assessing LLMs' Performance in Document-Level Translationcited by 5
- 2024Multi-Dimensional Machine Translation Evaluation: Model Evaluation and Resource for Koreancited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.