Lorenzo Proietti

Stefano Perrella, Lorenzo Proietti, Alessandro Scirè et al.

Annually, at the Conference of Machine Translation (WMT), the Metrics Shared Task organizers conduct the meta-evaluation of Machine Translation (MT) metrics, ranking them according to their correlation with human judgments. Their results guide researchers toward enhancing the next generation of metrics and MT systems. With the recent introduction of neural metrics, the field has witnessed notable advancements. Nevertheless, the inherent opacity of these metrics has posed substantial challenges to the meta-evaluation process. This work highlights two issues with the meta-evaluation framework currently employed in WMT, and assesses their impact on the metrics rankings. To do this, we introduce the concept of sentinel metrics, which are designed explicitly to scrutinize the meta-evaluation process's accuracy, robustness, and fairness. By employing sentinel metrics, we aim to validate our findings, and shed light on and monitor the potential biases or inconsistencies in the rankings. We discover that the present meta-evaluation framework favors two categories of metrics: i) those explicitly trained to mimic human quality assessments, and ii) continuous metrics. Finally, we raise concerns regarding the evaluation capabilities of state-of-the-art metrics, emphasizing that they might be basing their assessments on spurious correlations found in their training data.

Lorenzo Proietti, Stefano Perrella, Roberto Navigli

In Machine Translation (MT) evaluation, metric performance is assessed based on agreement with human judgments. In recent years, automatic metrics have demonstrated increasingly high levels of agreement with humans. To gain a clearer understanding of metric performance and establish an upper bound, we incorporate human baselines in the MT meta-evaluation, that is, the assessment of MT metrics' capabilities. Our results show that human annotators are not consistently superior to automatic metrics, with state-of-the-art metrics often ranking on par with or higher than human baselines. Despite these findings suggesting human parity, we discuss several reasons for caution. Finally, we explore the broader implications of our results for the research field, asking: Can we still reliably measure improvements in MT evaluation? With this work, we aim to shed light on the limits of our ability to measure progress in the field, fostering discussion on an issue that we believe is crucial to the entire MT evaluation community.

Tom Kocmi, Eleftherios Avramidis, Rachel Bawden et al. · eth-zurich, microsoft-research

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.