CaMMT: Benchmarking Culturally Aware Multimodal Machine Translation

Cultural content poses challenges for machine translation systems due to the differences in conceptualizations between cultures, where language alone may fail to convey sufficient context to capture region-specific meanings. In this work, we investigate whether images can act as cultural context in multimodal translation. We introduce CaMMT, a human-curated benchmark of over 5,800 triples of images along with parallel captions in English and regional languages. Using this dataset, we evaluate five Vision Language Models (VLMs) in text-only and text+image settings. Through automatic and human evaluations, we find that visual context generally improves translation quality, especially in handling Culturally-Specific Items (CSIs), disambiguation, and correct gender usage. By releasing CaMMT, we aim to support broader efforts in building and evaluating multimodal translation systems that are better aligned with cultural nuance and regional variation.

ProverbEval: Exploring LLM Evaluation Challenges for Low-resource Language Understanding

With the rapid development of evaluation datasets to assess LLMs understanding across a wide range of subjects and domains, identifying a suitable language understanding benchmark has become increasingly challenging. In this work, we explore LLM evaluation challenges for low-resource language understanding and introduce ProverbEval, LLM evaluation benchmark for low-resource languages based on proverbs to focus on low-resource language understanding in culture-specific scenarios. We benchmark various LLMs and explore factors that create variability in the benchmarking process. We observed performance variances of up to 50%, depending on the order in which answer choices were presented in multiple-choice tasks. Native language proverb descriptions significantly improve tasks such as proverb generation, contributing to improved outcomes. Additionally, monolingual evaluations consistently outperformed their cross-lingual counterparts. We argue special attention must be given to the order of choices, choice of prompt language, task variability, and generation tasks when creating LLM evaluation benchmarks.