Here is today's selection of cs.CL papers exploring innovative evaluation and optimization techniques in machine translation and related fields. The papers focus on multilingual and multimodal benchmarks for assessing language model quality, investigate compact models for on-device error detection, and propose novel approaches in natural language formalization and verification.

MTQ-Eval: Multilingual Text Quality Evaluation for Language Models

The use of large language models (LLMs) for evaluating outputs is becoming an increasingly effective and scalable approach. However, it remains uncertain whether this capability extends beyond task-specific evaluations to more general assessments of text quality, particularly in multilingual contexts. In this study, we introduce, MTQ-Eval, a novel framework for multilingual text quality evaluation that learns from examples of both high- and low-quality texts, adjusting its internal representations. To develop MTQ-Eval, we first automatically generate text quality preference data and then use it to train open-source base LLMs to align with ratings of high- and low-quality text. Our comprehensive evaluation across 115 languages demonstrates the improved performance of the proposed model. Upon further analysis, we find that this enhanced evaluation capability also leads to notable improvements in downstream tasks.

mmJEE-Eval: A Bilingual Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Scientific Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

Contemporary vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on existing multimodal reasoning benchmarks (78-85\% accuracy on MMMU, MathVista). Yet, these results fail to sufficiently distinguish true scientific reasoning articulation capabilities from pattern-matching. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{mmJEE-Eval}, a multimodal bilingual (English and Hindi) benchmark comprising 1,460 questions from India's JEE Advanced examination (2019-2025) spanning pre-college Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics domains. Our evaluation of 17 state-of-the-art models reveals that while frontier VLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash) achieve 77-84\% accuracy on held-out 2025 questions, open-source models plateau at 37-45\% despite scaling to 400B parameters, a significant difference not observed on existing benchmarks. While closed frontiers from Google and OpenAI show high problem-solving accuracies (up to 100\% pass@3 scores), they fully collapse when the reasoning load is increased meta-cognitively (GPT-5 fixes just 5.2\% errors). Systematic ablations show mmJEE-Eval's difficulty stems from complexity and reasoning depth rather than memorization. Effectively, our benchmark segregates superior training and reasoning methodologies where alternatives fail. We publicly release our code and data: https://mmjee-eval.github.io

A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification

Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their inherent stochasticity limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and healthcare that operate under strict policies. To address this limitation, we present a two-stage neurosymbolic framework that (1) uses LLMs with optional human guidance to formalize natural language policies, allowing fine-grained control of the formalization process, and (2) uses inference-time autoformalization to validate logical correctness of natural language statements against those policies. When correctness is paramount, we perform multiple redundant formalization steps at inference time, cross checking the formalizations for semantic equivalence. Our benchmarks demonstrate that our approach exceeds 99% soundness, indicating a near-zero false positive rate in identifying logical validity. Our approach produces auditable logical artifacts that substantiate the verification outcomes and can be used to improve the original text.

How Small Can You Go? Compact Language Models for On-Device Critical Error Detection in Machine Translation

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at evaluating machine translation (MT), but their scale and cost hinder deployment on edge devices and in privacy-sensitive workflows. We ask: how small can you get while still detecting meaning-altering translation errors? Focusing on English->German Critical Error Detection (CED), we benchmark sub-2B models (LFM2-350M, Qwen-3-0.6B/1.7B, Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct, Gemma-3-1B) across WMT21, WMT22, and SynCED-EnDe-2025. Our framework standardizes prompts, applies lightweight logit-bias calibration and majority voting, and reports both semantic quality (MCC, F1-ERR/F1-NOT) and compute metrics (VRAM, latency, throughput). Results reveal a clear sweet spot around one billion parameters: Gemma-3-1B provides the best quality-efficiency trade-off, reaching MCC=0.77 with F1-ERR=0.98 on SynCED-EnDe-2025 after merged-weights fine-tuning, while maintaining 400 ms single-sample latency on a MacBook Pro M4 Pro (24 GB). At larger scale, Qwen-3-1.7B attains the highest absolute MCC (+0.11 over Gemma) but with higher compute cost. In contrast, ultra-small models (0.6B) remain usable with few-shot calibration yet under-detect entity and number errors. Overall, compact, instruction-tuned LLMs augmented with lightweight calibration and small-sample supervision can deliver trustworthy, on-device CED for MT, enabling private, low-cost error screening in real-world translation pipelines. All datasets, prompts, and scripts are publicly available at our GitHub repository.

MM-CRITIC: A Holistic Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models as Multimodal Critique

The ability of critique is vital for models to self-improve and serve as reliable AI assistants. While extensively studied in language-only settings, multimodal critique of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) remains underexplored despite their growing capabilities in tasks like captioning and visual reasoning. In this work, we introduce MM-CRITIC, a holistic benchmark for evaluating the critique ability of LMMs across multiple dimensions: basic, correction, and comparison. Covering 8 main task types and over 500 tasks, MM-CRITIC collects responses from various LMMs with different model sizes and is composed of 4471 samples. To enhance the evaluation reliability, we integrate expert-informed ground answers into scoring rubrics that guide GPT-4o in annotating responses and generating reference critiques, which serve as anchors for trustworthy judgments. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of MM-CRITIC and provide a comprehensive assessment of leading LMMs' critique capabilities under multiple dimensions. Further analysis reveals some key insights, including the correlation between response quality and critique, and varying critique difficulty across evaluation dimensions. Our code is available at https://github.com/MichealZeng0420/MM-Critic.