Today’s MT research digest highlights work spanning evaluation, translation, and verification, with a notable emphasis on how models handle real-world language tasks beyond simple sentence-level transfer. Common themes include benchmarking model knowledge and reliability, improving annotation and assessment workflows, and exploring translation in culturally sensitive settings such as classical poetry and language certification.

CARTE: A Benchmark for Mapping Language Model Knowledge Across France

We introduce CARTE 1 (Culturally Anchored Regional-Territorial Evaluation), a multiplechoice benchmark for evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform fine-grained reasoning over geographically grounded and regionally differentiated knowledge within France. While prior benchmarks focus on national-level cultural understanding, they largely overlook intra-country variation and the need to distinguish between closely related regional contexts. CARTE addresses this gap by introducing 2,431 questions spanning the 13 metropolitan regions of France and covering 14 thematic domains, including culture, language, demographics, economy, environment, and mobility. We further introduce CARTE-LV, a subset targeting Linguistic Variation across French regions, enabling focused evaluation of language-related differences. We evaluate 27 LLMs ranging from 1B to 12B parameters under few-shot settings. Our experiments reveal performance disparities across regions and model scales, suggesting systematic gaps in pretraining coverage and limited robustness to intra-national variation.

HLL: Can Agents Cross Humanity's Last Line of Verification?

Multimodal agents are increasingly expected to operate interfaces on behalf of users, raising a central deployment question: can they truly substitute for humans in workflows that services deliberately protect against automation? CAPTCHA verification makes this question concrete. It is not merely a visual puzzle, but a human-verification boundary placed before account creation, content access, form submission, and other protected actions. We introduce \textbf{Humanity's Last Line of Verification (HLL)}, a controlled benchmark that uses interactive CAPTCHA verification to evaluate whether agents can cross this boundary through grounded, human-like interaction rather than recognition alone. HLL covers diverse CAPTCHA interactions and exposes agents to controlled realism stressors, including cluttered webpages, harder task variants, and trace-conditioned validation of the solving process. We evaluate eight frontier multimodal agents in a closed-loop GUI environment. The results show that current agents remain brittle at this human-substitution boundary: performance varies sharply across verification types, degrades under realistic interface conditions, and drops further when correct answers must be supported by valid action traces. By exposing gaps in localization, action calibration, state tracking, and process consistency, HLL provides a concrete testbed for measuring how close multimodal agents are to acting as human substitutes in protected real-world workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinhaoS0101/HLL

Translating Classical Poetry into Modern Prose

We introduce Padyam2Gadyam, a dataset for the task of poem-to-prose translation from 13th-17th Century Telugu Classical Poetry to contemporary Telugu and English prose. The dataset consists of 600 poems and their human-verified Telugu and English prose translations. We evaluated 5 contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to do poem-to-prose translation into Telugu and English. Our results indicate that while there are differences across LLMs, their overall performance leave a large room for improvement in both languages. Through qualitative analysis, we discuss the the capabilities and limitations of contemporary MT evaluation approaches for this task.

Automated Essay Scoring and Language Certification: Assessing Generalizability, Agreement and Validity for French

In Automated Essay Scoring (AES), benchmarking practices have fostered minimalist evaluation practices, in contrast with the broader-view recommendations of evaluation frameworks, such as the argument-based validation framework (ABV), which argued in favor of a multidimensional assessment of systems, especially in the context of high-stakes language tests. In this paper, we introduce an enhanced and more practical version of the ABV framework, incorporating fairness analysis, correlations with linguistic features, prediction error evaluation, and model agreement compared with human raters. Applying this framework to French AES, we compare 8 model architectures on a corpus of 27k exam essays (2 raters each) and a generalization corpus of 961 essays (at least nine raters each). Our analyses illustrate the benefits of applying the ABV framework to better understand the capabilities and pitfalls of AES models, while also advancing the state-of-the-art for French AES.

Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of \textsf{FOLIO} and a subset of \textsf{MALLS} test instances, finding that approximately 39% and 36% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (16.4% and 48%) and incorrect NLI labels in \textsf{FOLIO} (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +9 to +22 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 24% of instances, compared to over 70% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.