Three papers will be presented at the EMNLP 2026 main conference, including one TACL paper.
Discourse Dependency: A Continuous Criterion for Translation Difficulty
Abstract Paper Code BibTeX
Recent calls for harder machine translation benchmarks have not clarified what difficulty should mean. We argue that one meaningful and currently unmeasured axis is referential reach, the distance a segment must look back into its document to resolve the entities and pronouns it contains. We formalize this as discourse dependency (DDP), a metric-free, source-side measure computed from named entity re-mentions and pronominal coreference. Validated against gold coreference, DDP errs one-sidedly in 99.2% of segments, so a high-DDP segment is certified to require long-range context. Applying DDP to WMT24++ and WMT25 shows that both are heavily skewed toward low-DDP segments, which domain labels do not distinguish. Building on DDP, we compare five context injection strategies in an English-Korean post-editing setup, varying context size and selection. As DDP grows, no strategy keeps pace with human post-editing. On segments with DDP >= 15 raters prefer human translations, while automatic metrics register no difference. As frontier systems saturate aggregate scores, DDP shifts evaluation from how well models score to how far they can reach.
The Blindness of Document-Level Translation Evaluation
Abstract Paper Code BibTeX
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 English-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.
Hearing to Translate: The Effectiveness of Speech Modality Integration into LLMs
Abstract Paper Code BibTeX
As Large Language Models (LLMs) expand beyond text, integrating speech as a native modality has given rise to SpeechLLMs, which aim to translate spoken language directly, thereby bypassing traditional transcription-based pipelines. Whether this integration improves speech-to-text translation quality over established cascaded architectures, however, remains an open question. We present Hearing to Translate, the first comprehensive test suite rigorously benchmarking 5 state-of-the-art SpeechLLMs against 16 strong direct and cascade systems that couple leading speech foundation models (SFM), with multilingual LLMs. Our analysis spans 16 benchmarks, 13 language pairs, and 9 challenging conditions, including disfluent, noisy, and long-form speech. Across this extensive evaluation, we find that cascaded systems remain the most reliable overall, while current SpeechLLMs only match cascades in selected settings and SFMs lag behind both, highlighting that integrating an LLM, either within the model or in a pipeline, is essential for high-quality speech translation.