xCOMET: Transparent Machine Translation Evaluation through Fine-grained Error Detection
About
Widely used learned metrics for machine translation evaluation, such as COMET and BLEURT, estimate the quality of a translation hypothesis by providing a single sentence-level score. As such, they offer little insight into translation errors (e.g., what are the errors and what is their severity). On the other hand, generative large language models (LLMs) are amplifying the adoption of more granular strategies to evaluation, attempting to detail and categorize translation errors. In this work, we introduce xCOMET, an open-source learned metric designed to bridge the gap between these approaches. xCOMET integrates both sentence-level evaluation and error span detection capabilities, exhibiting state-of-the-art performance across all types of evaluation (sentence-level, system-level, and error span detection). Moreover, it does so while highlighting and categorizing error spans, thus enriching the quality assessment. We also provide a robustness analysis with stress tests, and show that xCOMET is largely capable of identifying localized critical errors and hallucinations.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Machine Translation Meta-evaluation | WMT Metrics Shared Task Segment-level 2023 (Primary submissions) | Avg Correlation0.697 | 33 | |
| Machine Translation Meta-evaluation | MENT ZH-EN | Meta Score54.5 | 30 | |
| Machine Translation Meta-evaluation | MENT EN-ZH | Meta Score54.5 | 30 | |
| Machine Translation Meta-evaluation | WMT MQM (En-De, En-Es, Ja-Zh) 24 | SPA86.1 | 28 | |
| Machine Translation Evaluation Metric | WMT MQM 23 | Acc92.8 | 27 | |
| Machine Translation Evaluation | MSLC OOD 24 | MT Empty Score73.79 | 12 | |
| Quality Estimation | En-Ml | Pearson r0.355 | 9 | |
| Error Span Detection | WMT24 (test) | SPA84.4 | 6 |