Here is today's selection of cs.CL papers exploring advancements in translation and evaluation methodologies. The featured works focus on enhancing non-literal translation evaluation, refining evaluation trends in natural language generation, and adapting NLP models for diverse data sequences. These studies highlight the evolving landscape of multilingual and multimodal pipelines and innovative approaches to model merging for improved performance.

Beyond Literal Mapping: Benchmarking and Improving Non-Literal Translation Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced Machine Translation (MT), applying them to linguistically complex domains-such as Social Network Services, literature etc. In these scenarios, translations often require handling non-literal expressions, leading to the inaccuracy of MT metrics. To systematically investigate the reliability of MT metrics, we first curate a meta-evaluation dataset focused on non-literal translations, namely MENT. MENT encompasses four non-literal translation domains and features source sentences paired with translations from diverse MT systems, with 7,530 human-annotated scores on translation quality. Experimental results reveal the inaccuracies of traditional MT metrics and the limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge, particularly the knowledge cutoff and score inconsistency problem. To mitigate these limitations, we propose RATE, a novel agentic translation evaluation framework, centered by a reflective Core Agent that dynamically invokes specialized sub-agents. Experimental results indicate the efficacy of RATE, achieving an improvement of at least 3.2 meta score compared with current metrics. Further experiments demonstrate the robustness of RATE to general-domain MT evaluation. Code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/BITHLP/RATE.

Multilingual, Multimodal Pipeline for Creating Authentic and Structured Fact-Checked Claim Dataset

The rapid proliferation of misinformation across online platforms underscores the urgent need for robust, up-to-date, explainable, and multilingual fact-checking resources. However, existing datasets are limited in scope, often lacking multimodal evidence, structured annotations, and detailed links between claims, evidence, and verdicts. This paper introduces a comprehensive data collection and processing pipeline that constructs multimodal fact-checking datasets in French and German languages by aggregating ClaimReview feeds, scraping full debunking articles, normalizing heterogeneous claim verdicts, and enriching them with structured metadata and aligned visual content. We used state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) and multimodal LLMs for (i) evidence extraction under predefined evidence categories and (ii) justification generation that links evidence to verdicts. Evaluation with G-Eval and human assessment demonstrates that our pipeline enables fine-grained comparison of fact-checking practices across different organizations or media markets, facilitates the development of more interpretable and evidence-grounded fact-checking models, and lays the groundwork for future research on multilingual, multimodal misinformation verification.

Order in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends

Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.

PlaM: Training-Free Plateau-Guided Model Merging for Better Visual Grounding in MLLMs

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) rely on strong linguistic reasoning inherited from their base language models. However, multimodal instruction fine-tuning paradoxically degrades this text's reasoning capability, undermining multimodal performance. To address this issue, we propose a training-free framework to mitigate this degradation. Through layer-wise vision token masking, we reveal a common three-stage pattern in multimodal large language models: early-modal separation, mid-modal alignment, and late-modal degradation. By analyzing the behavior of MLLMs at different stages, we propose a plateau-guided model merging method that selectively injects base language model parameters into MLLMs. Experimental results based on five MLLMs on nine benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Attention-based analysis further reveals that merging shifts attention from diffuse, scattered patterns to focused localization on task-relevant visual regions. Our repository is on https://github.com/wzj1718/PlaM.

From Word Sequences to Behavioral Sequences: Adapting Modeling and Evaluation Paradigms for Longitudinal NLP

While NLP typically treats documents as independent and unordered samples, in longitudinal studies, this assumption rarely holds: documents are nested within authors and ordered in time, forming person-indexed, time-ordered $\textit{behavioral sequences}$. Here, we demonstrate the need for and propose a longitudinal modeling and evaluation paradigm that consequently updates four parts of the NLP pipeline: (1) evaluation splits aligned to generalization over people ($\textit{cross-sectional}$) and/or time ($\textit{prospective}$); (2) accuracy metrics separating between-person differences from within-person dynamics; (3) sequence inputs to incorporate history by default; and (4) model internals that support different $\textit{coarseness}$ of latent state over histories (pooled summaries, explicit dynamics, or interaction-based models). We demonstrate the issues ensued by traditional pipeline and our proposed improvements on a dataset of 17k daily diary transcripts paired with PTSD symptom severity from 238 participants, finding that traditional document-level evaluation can yield substantially different and sometimes reversed conclusions compared to our ecologically valid modeling and evaluation. We tie our results to a broader discussion motivating a shift from word-sequence evaluation toward $\textit{behavior-sequence}$ paradigms for NLP.