arXiv subjects

Markus Freitag

Publications and source records attributed to Markus Freitag.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

TranslateGemma Technical Report

We present TranslateGemma, a suite of open machine translation models based on the Gemma 3 foundation models. To enhance the inherent multilingual capabilities of Gemma 3 for the translation task, we employ a two-stage fine-tuning process. First, supervised fine-tuning is performed using a rich mixture of high-quality large-scale synthetic parallel data generated via state-of-the-art models and human-translated parallel data. This is followed by a reinforcement learning phase, where we optimize translation quality using an ensemble of reward models, including MetricX-QE and AutoMQM, targeting translation quality. We demonstrate the effectiveness of TranslateGemma with human evaluation on the WMT25 test set across 10 language pairs and with automatic evaluation on the WMT24++ benchmark across 55 language pairs. Automatic metrics show consistent and substantial gains over the baseline Gemma 3 models across all sizes. Notably, smaller TranslateGemma models often achieve performance comparable to larger baseline models, offering improved efficiency. We also show that TranslateGemma models retain strong multimodal capabilities, with enhanced performance on the Vistra image translation benchmark. The release of the open TranslateGemma models aims to provide the research community with powerful and adaptable tools for machine translation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Mind the Gap... or Not? How Translation Errors and Evaluation Details Skew Multilingual Results

Most current large language models (LLMs) support a wide variety of languages in addition to English, including high-resource languages (e.g. German, Chinese, French), as well as low-resource ones (e.g. Swahili, Telugu). In addition, they have shown impressive capabilities in different domains, like coding, science and math. In this paper, taking math as an example domain, we study the performance of different LLMs across languages. Experimental results show that there exists a non-negligible and consistent gap in the performance of the models across languages. Interestingly, and somewhat against expectations, the gap exists for both high- and low-resource languages. These results should impact further research into cross-lingual capability generalization for next generation LLMs. Or they would, if it weren't for the fact that they are distorted by data quality issues. By analyzing one of the standard multilingual math benchmarks (MGSM), we determine that several translation errors are present in the data. Furthermore, the lack of standardized answer extraction from LLM outputs further influences the final results. We propose a method for semi-automatic quality assurance to address the first issue at scale, and give recommendations to address the second one. Combining these two approaches we show that the aforementioned language gap mostly disappears, leading to completely different conclusions from our research. We additionally release the corrected dataset to the community (https://github.com/google-research-datasets/MGSM-Rev2).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MQM Re-Annotation: A Technique for Collaborative Evaluation of Machine Translation

Human evaluation of machine translation is in an arms race with translation model quality: as our models get better, our evaluation methods need to be improved to ensure that quality gains are not lost in evaluation noise. To this end, we experiment with a two-stage version of the current state-of-the-art translation evaluation paradigm (MQM), which we call MQM re-annotation. In this setup, an MQM annotator reviews and edits a set of pre-existing MQM annotations, that may have come from themselves, another human annotator, or an automatic MQM annotation system. We demonstrate that rater behavior in re-annotation aligns with our goals, and that re-annotation results in higher-quality annotations, mostly due to finding errors that were missed during the first pass.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MetricX-25 and GemSpanEval: Google Translate Submissions to the WMT25 Evaluation Shared Task

In this paper, we present our submissions to the unified WMT25 Translation Evaluation Shared Task. For the Quality Score Prediction subtask, we create a new generation of MetricX with improvements in the input format and the training protocol, while for the Error Span Detection subtask we develop a new model, GemSpanEval, trained to predict error spans along with their severities and categories. Both systems are based on the state-of-the-art multilingual open-weights model Gemma 3, fine-tuned on publicly available WMT data. We demonstrate that MetricX-25, adapting Gemma 3 to an encoder-only architecture with a regression head on top, can be trained to effectively predict both MQM and ESA quality scores, and significantly outperforms its predecessor. Our decoder-only GemSpanEval model, on the other hand, we show to be competitive in error span detection with xCOMET, a strong encoder-only sequence-tagging baseline. With error span detection formulated as a generative task, we instruct the model to also output the context for each predicted error span, thus ensuring that error spans are identified unambiguously.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Penalizing Length: Uncovering Systematic Bias in Quality Estimation Metrics

Quality Estimation (QE) metrics are vital in machine translation for reference-free evaluation and increasingly serve as selection criteria in data filtering and candidate reranking. However, the prevalence and impact of length bias in QE metrics have been underexplored. Through a systematic study of top-performing learned and LLM-as-a-Judge QE metrics across 10 diverse language pairs, we reveal two critical length effects: First, QE metrics consistently over-predict errors with increasing translation length, even for high-quality, error-free texts. Second, when candidates of comparable quality are available for the same source text, learned QE metrics tend to favor shorter translations, whereas LLM-as-a-Judge metrics range from being approximately length-neutral to favoring longer translations. These metric-dependent length effects can favor or penalize translations based on length rather than quality and can propagate into downstream pipelines that rely on QE signals for data selection or system optimization. We trace the root cause of MetricX-24 QE's cumulative-length penalty to skewed supervision distributions, in which longer error-free examples are underrepresented in training data. As a diagnostic intervention, we apply length normalization during training and show that this simple modification effectively decouples error prediction from sequence length, yielding more reliable QE signals across translations of varying length.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Generating Difficult-to-Translate Texts

Machine translation benchmarks sourced from the real world are quickly obsoleted, due to most examples being easy for state-of-the-art translation models. This limits the benchmark's ability to distinguish which model is better or to reveal models' weaknesses. Current methods for creating difficult test cases, such as subsampling or from-scratch synthesis, either fall short of identifying difficult examples or suffer from a lack of diversity and naturalness. Inspired by the iterative process of human experts probing for model failures, we propose MT-breaker, a method where a large language model iteratively refines a source text to increase its translation difficulty. The LLM iteratively queries a target machine translation model to guide its generation of difficult examples. Our approach generates examples that are more challenging for the target MT model while preserving the diversity of natural texts. While the examples are tailored to a particular machine translation model during the generation, the difficulty also transfers to other models and languages.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

When LLMs Benchmark Themselves: Deconstructing Self-Bias in Automated Evaluation

As LLMs rapidly saturate existing benchmarks, automated benchmark creation using LLMs (LLM as a benchmark) where a model generates test inputs (LLM as a testset) and evaluates outputs (LLM as an evaluator) has gained traction as a cheap alternative to human curation. We show that this paradigm has a fundamental problem: LLM-generated benchmarks systematically favor the model that created them. Using machine translation as our primary testbed, we find that self bias arises from two compounding sources, LLM as a testset and LLM as an evaluator, and their combination amplifies the effect. Crucially, even when test data is generated with explicit diversity controls, each model\'s implicit stylistic tendencies produce homogeneous, model-specific outputs that inflate its own scores. Increasing source text diversity, using our proposed diversity metric, partially mitigates this bias. Self bias is strong enough to cause each model to rank itself first, overriding the peer consensus ordering. We confirm that the phenomenon extends to open-ended generation on the Chatbot Arena task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Searching the Internet for Challenging Benchmarks at Scale

Many static benchmarks are beginning to saturate: as models rapidly improve, they achieve near-perfect scores on fixed test sets, leaving little headroom to expose genuine model weaknesses -- and even expert-curated challenge sets quickly saturate after hillclimbing. We present a fully automatic framework that searches the Internet at scale to construct challenging benchmarks without human curation. The key insight is to model the Internet as a vast space of topics and formalize the search as a multi-armed bandit problem, where each topic's difficulty is revealed only through expensive sample-and-evaluate queries. Our epsilon-greedy strategy identifies the most challenging topics while exploring only 6% of the search space -- a 100 times cost reduction over exhaustive evaluation. We validate on machine translation and knowledge question answering, confirming that discovered difficulty is robust across independent metrics (GEMBA-SQA and MetricX), languages, and models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Feeding Two Birds or Favoring One? Adequacy-Fluency Tradeoffs in Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation of Machine Translation

We investigate the tradeoff between adequacy and fluency in machine translation. We show the severity of this tradeoff at the evaluation level and analyze where popular metrics fall within it. Essentially, current metrics generally lean toward adequacy, meaning that their scores correlate more strongly with the adequacy of translations than with fluency. More importantly, we find that this tradeoff also persists at the meta-evaluation level, and that the standard WMT meta-evaluation favors adequacy-oriented metrics over fluency-oriented ones. We show that this bias is partially attributed to the composition of the systems included in the meta-evaluation datasets. To control this bias, we propose a method that synthesizes translation systems in meta-evaluation. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding this tradeoff in meta-evaluation and its impact on metric rankings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Preliminary Ranking of WMT25 General Machine Translation Systems

We present the preliminary rankings of machine translation (MT) systems submitted to the WMT25 General Machine Translation Shared Task, as determined by automatic evaluation metrics. Because these rankings are derived from automatic evaluation, they may exhibit a bias toward systems that employ re-ranking techniques, such as Quality Estimation or Minimum Bayes Risk decoding. The official WMT25 ranking will be based on human evaluation, which is more reliable and will supersede these results. The official WMT25 ranking will be based on human evaluation, which is more reliable and will supersede these results. The purpose of releasing these findings now is to assist task participants with their system description papers; not to provide final findings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

You Cannot Feed Two Birds with One Score: the Accuracy-Naturalness Tradeoff in Translation

The goal of translation, be it by human or by machine, is, given some text in a source language, to produce text in a target language that simultaneously 1) preserves the meaning of the source text and 2) achieves natural expression in the target language. However, researchers in the machine translation community usually assess translations using a single score intended to capture semantic accuracy and the naturalness of the output simultaneously. In this paper, we build on recent advances in information theory to mathematically prove and empirically demonstrate that such single-score summaries do not and cannot give the complete picture of a system's true performance. Concretely, we prove that a tradeoff exists between accuracy and naturalness and demonstrate it by evaluating the submissions to the WMT24 shared task. Our findings help explain well-known empirical phenomena, such as the observation that optimizing translation systems for a specific accuracy metric (like BLEU) initially improves the system's naturalness, while ``overfitting'' the system to the metric can significantly degrade its naturalness. Thus, we advocate for a change in how translations are evaluated: rather than comparing systems using a single number, they should be compared on an accuracy-naturalness plane.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Enhancing Human Evaluation in Machine Translation with Comparative Judgment

Human evaluation is crucial for assessing rapidly evolving language models but is influenced by annotator proficiency and task design. This study explores the integration of comparative judgment into human annotation for machine translation (MT) and evaluates three annotation setups-point-wise Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), side-by-side (SxS) MQM, and its simplified version SxS relative ranking (RR). In MQM, annotators mark error spans with categories and severity levels. SxS MQM extends MQM to pairwise error annotation for two translations of the same input, while SxS RR focuses on selecting the better output without labeling errors. Key findings are: (1) the SxS settings achieve higher inter-annotator agreement than MQM; (2) SxS MQM enhances inter-translation error marking consistency compared to MQM by, on average, 38.5% for explicitly compared MT systems and 19.5% for others; (3) all annotation settings return stable system rankings, with SxS RR offering a more efficient alternative to (SxS) MQM; (4) the SxS settings highlight subtle errors overlooked in MQM without altering absolute system evaluations. To spur further research, we will release the triply annotated datasets comprising 377 ZhEn and 104 EnDe annotation examples.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

WMT24++: Expanding the Language Coverage of WMT24 to 55 Languages & Dialects

As large language models (LLM) become more and more capable in languages other than English, it is important to collect benchmark datasets in order to evaluate their multilingual performance, including on tasks like machine translation (MT). In this work, we extend the WMT24 dataset to cover 55 languages by collecting new human-written references and post-edits for 46 new languages and dialects in addition to post-edits of the references in 8 out of 9 languages in the original WMT24 dataset. The dataset covers four domains: literary, news, social, and speech. We benchmark a variety of MT providers and LLMs on the collected dataset using automatic metrics and find that LLMs are the best-performing MT systems in all 55 languages. These results should be confirmed using a human-based evaluation, which we leave for future work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Overestimation in LLM Evaluation: A Controlled Large-Scale Study on Data Contamination's Impact on Machine Translation

Data contamination -- the accidental consumption of evaluation examples within the pre-training data -- can undermine the validity of evaluation benchmarks. In this paper, we present a rigorous analysis of the effects of contamination on language models at 1B and 8B scales on the machine translation task. Starting from a carefully decontaminated train-test split, we systematically introduce contamination at various stages, scales, and data formats to isolate its effect and measure its impact on performance metrics. Our experiments reveal that contamination with both source and target substantially inflates BLEU scores, and this inflation is 2.5 times larger (up to 30 BLEU points) for 8B compared to 1B models. In contrast, source-only and target-only contamination generally produce smaller, less consistent over-estimations. Finally, we study how the temporal distribution and frequency of contaminated samples influence performance over-estimation across languages with varying degrees of data resources.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

From Jack of All Trades to Master of One: Specializing LLM-based Autoraters to a Test Set

As LLMs continue to become more powerful and versatile, human evaluation has quickly become intractable at scale and reliance on automatic metrics has become the norm. Recently, it has been shown that LLMs are themselves state-of-the-art evaluators for many tasks. These Autoraters are typically designed so that they generalize to new systems and test sets. In practice, however, evaluation is performed on a small set of fixed, canonical test sets, which are carefully curated to measure certain capabilities of interest and are not changed frequently. In this work, we design a method which specializes a prompted Autorater to a given test set, by leveraging historical ratings on the test set to construct in-context learning (ICL) examples. We evaluate our Specialist method on the task of fine-grained machine translation evaluation, and show that it dramatically outperforms the state-of-the-art XCOMET metric by 54% and 119% on the WMT'23 and WMT'24 test sets, respectively. We perform extensive analyses to understand the representations learned by our Specialist metrics, and how variability in rater behavior affects their performance. We also verify the generalizability and robustness of our Specialist method for designing automatic metrics across different numbers of ICL examples, LLM backbones, systems to evaluate, and evaluation tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Mitigating Metric Bias in Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding

While Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding using metrics such as COMET or MetricX has outperformed traditional decoding methods such as greedy or beam search, it introduces a challenge we refer to as metric bias. As MBR decoding aims to produce translations that score highly according to a specific utility metric, this very process makes it impossible to use the same metric for both decoding and evaluation, as improvements might simply be due to reward hacking rather than reflecting real quality improvements. In this work we find that compared to human ratings, neural metrics not only overestimate the quality of MBR decoding when the same metric is used as the utility metric, but they also overestimate the quality of MBR/QE decoding with other neural utility metrics as well. We also show that the metric bias issue can be mitigated by using an ensemble of utility metrics during MBR decoding: human evaluations show that MBR decoding using an ensemble of utility metrics outperforms a single utility metric.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Learning from others' mistakes: Finetuning machine translation models with span-level error annotations

Despite growing interest in incorporating feedback to improve language models, most efforts focus only on sequence-level annotations. In this work, we explore the potential of utilizing fine-grained span-level annotations from offline datasets to improve model quality. We develop a simple finetuning algorithm, called Training with Annotations (TWA), to directly train machine translation models on such annotated data. TWA utilizes targeted span-level error information while also flexibly learning what to penalize within a span. Moreover, TWA considers the overall trajectory of a sequence when deciding which non-error spans to utilize as positive signals. Experiments on English-German and Chinese-English machine translation show that TWA outperforms baselines such as Supervised FineTuning on sequences filtered for quality and Direct Preference Optimization on pairs constructed from the same data.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Beyond Human-Only: Evaluating Human-Machine Collaboration for Collecting High-Quality Translation Data

Collecting high-quality translations is crucial for the development and evaluation of machine translation systems. However, traditional human-only approaches are costly and slow. This study presents a comprehensive investigation of 11 approaches for acquiring translation data, including human-only, machineonly, and hybrid approaches. Our findings demonstrate that human-machine collaboration can match or even exceed the quality of human-only translations, while being more cost-efficient. Error analysis reveals the complementary strengths between human and machine contributions, highlighting the effectiveness of collaborative methods. Cost analysis further demonstrates the economic benefits of human-machine collaboration methods, with some approaches achieving top-tier quality at around 60% of the cost of traditional methods. We release a publicly available dataset containing nearly 18,000 segments of varying translation quality with corresponding human ratings to facilitate future research.

cs.CL↗