In the Blind: Building Pseudo-References for MT Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The WMT26 General MT task evaluates systems on 10 language pairs that have no human references (neither translated from scratch nor post-edited from MT output by humans). We describe how we built the pseudo-references for these pairs and six other language pairs (in which some forms of human references are available): seven models translate the 3,277 official documents under up to five prompt conditions, giving a total of 26 system-prompt combinations; then three reference-free quality estimation (QE) models score every candidate; and a per-document selector picks one translation, which GPT-5.5 post-edits where needed. Working without references exposed a failure mode of QE-guided selection: the metrics rank fluent output in the wrong language above correct translations. Adding a confidence-scaled language identification penalty to the score fusion drives the wrong-language count to zero, and the resulting selector still scores better on MetricX than the rank-fusion baseline it replaces. Since no references were available for these pairs while we were building them, we calibrate every selection decision on last year's WMT25 human judgments. The human evaluation, released after construction, shows the cost of getting selection wrong: our references stand with the strongest participating systems when the selector kept a frontier-model candidate, and fall up to 17 ESA points below them when it did not. We release the selection method and the provenance of every reference (https://github.com/surrey-nlp/PseudoRef)
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2026.
Builds on
24 of 45 references.
References · 24
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,583
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
- 2020Improving Massively Multilingual Neural Machine Translation and Zero-Shot Translationcited by 277
- 2023xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detectioncited by 265
- 2024Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Taskscited by 206
- 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 138
12 more
- 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 110
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
- 2024MetricX-24: The Google Submission to the WMT 2024 Metrics Shared Taskcited by 93
- 2023Scaling up COMETKIWI: Unbabel-IST 2023 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 88
- 2024Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMscited by 75
- 2024Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translationcited by 62
- 2023Leveraging GPT-4 for Automatic Translation Post-Editingcited by 56
- 2022Identifying Weaknesses in Machine Translation Metrics Through Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding: A Case Study for COMETcited by 41
- 2025Tower+: Bridging Generality and Translation Specialization in Multilingual LLMscited by 40
- 2023BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Trainingcited by 24
- 2026TranslateGemma Technical Reportcited by 7
- 2026Mending the Holes: Mitigating Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning for Multilingual Translationcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.