ComplexityMT: Benchmarking the Interaction Between Text Complexity and Machine Translation

When a text is translated, does the translation retain the complexity of the original? We introduce ComplexityMT, a new challenge for assessing how text complexity and machine translation interact with and influence each other, using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels as the measure of text complexity. Across six languages, including Arabic, Dutch, English, French, Hindi, and Russian, we evaluate three open-weight models, one closed model, and a commercial machine translation system on two tasks: i) correlation of CEFR with translation difficulty, and ii) shifts in CEFR levels of the source texts. Our experiments show that higher CEFR levels make texts more difficult to translate, and that machine translation shifts the CEFR level of the target text compared to the original source, for most languages. These findings provide new insights for researchers and practitioners working on multilingual pedagogical content generation and machine translation difficulty estimation.

Analysing Zero-Shot Readability-Controlled Sentence Simplification

Readability-controlled text simplification (RCTS) rewrites texts to lower readability levels while preserving their meaning. RCTS models often depend on parallel corpora with readability annotations on both source and target sides. Such datasets are scarce and difficult to curate, especially at the sentence level. To reduce reliance on parallel data, we explore using instruction-tuned large language models for zero-shot RCTS. Through automatic and manual evaluations, we examine: (1) how different types of contextual information affect a model's ability to generate sentences with the desired readability, and (2) the trade-off between achieving target readability and preserving meaning. Results show that all tested models struggle to simplify sentences (especially to the lowest levels) due to models' limitations and characteristics of the source sentences that impede adequate rewriting. Our experiments also highlight the need for better automatic evaluation metrics tailored to RCTS, as standard ones often misinterpret common simplification operations, and inaccurately assess readability and meaning preservation.