Today’s MT research digest highlights fresh work on multilingual and specialized evaluation, with a clear focus on how models perform in high-stakes, domain-specific settings. Common themes include benchmark design, robustness across languages and encodings, and aligning model behavior with grounded criteria in medicine, law, and technical reasoning.

HealMed: Multilingual Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medicine

We present HealMed, an expert-reviewed benchmark for multilingual evaluation of large language models in medicine. HealMed contains 1,000 examples in each of nine languages, drawn from nine datasets and covering three task formats: MCQA, NLI and open-ended QA. The benchmark was developed over two years by 23 physicians and medical experts based across nine countries and regions. Each translation was evaluated and revised by two experts fluent in English and the corresponding target language. On HealMed, performance declined most in low-resource languages, although the size of the gap varied markedly across languages and models. The strongest proprietary models were the most stable across languages, whereas many open-source and medically specialized models showed larger and less consistent gaps. Medical specialization alone did not ensure multilingual robustness. Furthermore, expert revision could either raise or lower measured performance, indicating that translation quality materially affects cross-language evaluation results.

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

G-CARL: Grounded Checklist-Aligned Reward Learning for Patient-Oriented Medical Report Interpretation

Personalized interpretation of medical reports has emerged as an increasingly important need among patients. Addressing this need requires both evidence-grounded medical factuality and context-dependent patient communication, yet existing medical vision-language tasks do not adequately capture these dual requirements. To bridge this gap, we introduce Patient-oriented Medical Report Interpretation (PMRI), a novel open-ended multimodal generation task that requires models to explain medical reports in accurate and accessible language based on a user's query and dialogue history. These two objectives differ fundamentally in their verifiability, yet remain tightly coupled, making them difficult to optimize jointly under conventional supervised fine-tuning and holistic reinforcement learning paradigms. To address this challenge, we propose G-CARL, a grounded, checklist-aligned reinforcement learning framework that combines multi-source retrieval for atomic claim verification with context-aware, instance-specific weighted checklists for response coverage, providing structured supervision for factuality, user-demand satisfaction, and expression quality without constraining response diversity. We further construct MMedReport, a real-world PMRI benchmark, along with a clinician-designed three-dimensional evaluation protocol. Extensive experiments demonstrate that G-CARL consistently outperforms existing post-training baselines in overall quality, claim-level precision, and checklist recall. Pairwise preference evaluation by clinicians further confirms that G-CARL produces interpretations that are more accurate and better aligned with patient needs.

FormalTCS: Benchmarking End-to-End Frontier Formal Theoretical Computer Science Research of Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings. We introduce \ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research. \ourbenchmark contains $175$ instances drawn from papers accepted to STOC, FOCS, SODA, and COLT in 2025-2026, preserving paper-specific definitions, assumptions, and proof dependencies, with expert-verified Lean formalizations and proofs. Evaluations of leading LLMs reveal that current models remain far from reliably completing the full research pipeline. In particular, autoformalization is the sharpest bottleneck: the best model achieves only $11.5$ on translating natural-language claims into formal theorem statements, compared with $28.6$ Pass@8 when proving human-provided formal statements. Building on \ourbenchmark, we further develop an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims. Of $64$ generated claims, only $6$ ultimately pass expert evaluation and proof verification, indicating that beyond formalization, limited research taste remains another major barrier to autonomous TCS research.

ContractScrub: A benchmark for final review of legal contracts

Legal work, with its heavy reliance on processing large amounts of text, is often considered one of the domains most exposed to the use of LLMs. Contract ``scrubbing,'' the final review of transactional agreements for errors and inconsistencies, is a particularly suitable task for automation, because it is routine, painstaking work requiring detailed attention to long documents. Scrubbing also seems to align naturally with the general capabilities expected of frontier LLMs around long-context reasoning, consistency checking, and named entity recognition (NER). Despite the economic value and potential for automation, no formal evaluations of LLMs performing contract scrubbing have been conducted. We introduce ContractScrub, the first benchmark designed to evaluate contract scrubbing capabilities, comprising contracts hand-crafted by experienced lawyers over diverse error categories such as misuse of defined terms, incorrect references, and inconsistent language. Frontier models perform surprisingly poorly with only one model reaching 0.75 macro average recall despite strong performance on seemingly related general benchmarks, demonstrating the practical limits of current models and the importance of narrowly targeted, domain-specific benchmarks for measuring real-world impact.