Contrastive ESA: Human Evaluation of Multiple Translations at Once

Current human evaluation of machine translation typically assesses single outputs in isolation, a paradigm that suffers from high annotator noise and cost. We introduce Contrastive Error Span Annotation (cESA), a protocol that presents multiple translations of the source input (text, video, audio, image). In cESA, the annotator sees multiple translations of the same document, marks major and minor error spans, and then assigns a score from 0% to 100% on absolute scale. By allowing annotators to access the shared context across multiple outputs, cESA facilitates more consistent and efficient judgments. We validate cESA using a large-scale human evaluation of English->Japanese translations of 12 models, demonstrating reductions in annotation time and noise compared to standard pointwise evaluation. Unlike existing contrastive ranking methods, cESA yields absolute quality judgments that enable simple, interpretable non-parametric model rankings without the need for post-hoc corrections.

Measuring User's Mental Models of Speech Translation in Human-AI Collaboration

Millions of people use machine translation (MT) tools daily, yet little is known about their perception of what systems can and cannot do. This paper studies users' mental models of speech translation systems through a new framework based on cross-lingual question answering, where users either accept MT output or request professional re-translation to answer questions based on the information presented in a foreign language. By analyzing user behavior and accuracy trends across varying translation qualities, we examine to what extent they can predict where the system is likely to be wrong, and how this mental model evolves. Users develop stronger mental models with practice, especially when they have some knowledge of the source language, primarily by relying on surface-level error cues. Moreover, providing speech transcriptions can help users develop better mental models. Our results show the promise of cross-lingual question answering as a downstream task for studying MT mental models and advancing our understanding of human-AI collaboration.

AdaMame: A Training Recipe for Adaptive Multilingual Reasoning

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) show strong performance in English, they often fail to reason in the language of the query, a phenomenon known as language collapse. Existing RL-based fixes typically add a binary language fidelity reward to the accuracy objective, yet still incur trade-off in accuracy, mid-trace code-switching, and excessive token usage. In this work, we propose AdaMame, a two-stage training recipe for multilingual mathematical reasoning that addresses these limitations by adaptively aligning the reasoning language to the query language without compromising accuracy. The first SFT stage fine-tunes on naturally occurring reasoning traces across five languages to establish multilingual reasoning capability. In the subsequent RL stage, we introduce AdaMame-GRPO, an adaptation of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in which a query-conditioned alignment factor grows progressively during training, guiding the model to first explore diverse reasoning languages before exploiting reasoning in the query language. Evaluated across two benchmarks, two LRMs, and 12 languages, AdaMame-GRPO achieves Pareto-optimal performance across reasoning accuracy, language fidelity, and token efficiency over all baselines, with the strongest gains on out-of-domain, lower-resource languages.

Ouvia: A User-centered Framework for Measuring Usability of Speech Translation in Real-World Communication Scenarios

Speech translation (ST) is increasingly adopted in user applications, yet its evaluation largely focuses on decontextualized testbeds and holistic quality, rather than end users' communication needs. We introduce Ouvia, an evaluation framework for measuring user-perceived usability of speech translation outputs in real-world settings. Ouvia focuses on one-to-one communication: an English speaker needs to convey a request to a Portuguese speaker, and the message is automatically translated. Through a custom web app and multi-phase study design, we collect more than 1,750 such interactions in healthcare and everyday situations, mediated by four ST systems, involving speakers from three English dialects and two genders. We find that modern ST serves people only to a limited extent -- only around half of interactions are rated as usable -- with significant gaps in reported usability across demographic groups. Moreover, among quality metrics, we find that QA-based evaluation is a substantially stronger predictor of real-world usability than standard approaches. Together, these findings stress the importance of situated, user-centered evaluation frameworks that go beyond holistic quality scores and attend to who the technology serves -- and how well.

Can You Make It Sound Like You? Post-Editing LLM-Generated Text for Personal Style

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

Reheat Nachos for Dinner? Evaluating AI Support for Cross-Cultural Communication of Neologisms

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

Should We be Pedantic About Reasoning Errors in Machine Translation?

Across multiple language pairings (English $\to$ \{Spanish, French, German, Mandarin, Japanese, Urdu, Cantonese\}), we find reasoning errors in translation. To quantify how often these reasoning errors occur, we leverage an automated annotation protocol for reasoning evaluation wherein the goal is to detect if a reasoning step is any of three error categories: (1) source sentence-misaligned, (2) model hypothesis-misaligned, or (3) reasoning trace-misaligned. We probe the reasoning model with perturbed traces correcting for these identified reasoning errors using an array of weak-to-strong interventions: hedging, removal, re-reasoning after removal, hindsight, and oracle interventions. Experimenting with interventions on the reasoning traces suggests that small corrections to the reasoning have little impact on translation quality, but stronger interventions yield the highest resolution rates, despite translation quality gains being mixed. We find ultimately that reasoning errors in MT can be identified with high precision in Urdu but lower precision in Spanish, but that removing these reasoning errors does not resolve the initial errors significantly, suggesting limited reasoning faithfulness for machine translation.

What Makes Good Multilingual Reasoning? Disentangling Reasoning Traces with Measurable Features

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) still exhibit large performance gaps between English and other languages, yet much current work assumes these gaps can be closed simply by making reasoning in every language resemble English reasoning. This work challenges this assumption by asking instead: what actually characterizes effective reasoning in multilingual settings, and to what extent do English-derived reasoning features genuinely help in other languages? We first define a suite of measurable reasoning features spanning multilingual alignment, reasoning step, and reasoning flow aspects of reasoning traces, and use logistic regression to quantify how each feature associates with final answer accuracy. We further train sparse autoencoders over multilingual traces to automatically discover latent reasoning concepts that instantiate or extend these features. Finally, we use the features as test-time selection policies to examine whether they can steer models toward stronger multilingual reasoning. Across two mathematical reasoning benchmarks, four LRMs, and 10 languages, we find that most features are positively associated with accuracy, but the strength of association varies considerably across languages and can even reverse in some. Our findings challenge English-centric reward designs and point toward adaptive objectives that accommodate language-specific reasoning patterns, with concrete implications for multilingual benchmark and reward design.

Pragmatics Meets Culture: Culturally-adapted Artwork Description Generation and Evaluation

Language models are known to exhibit various forms of cultural bias in decision-making tasks, yet much less is known about their degree of cultural familiarity in open-ended text generation tasks. In this paper, we introduce the task of culturally-adapted art description generation, where models describe artworks for audiences from different cultural groups who vary in their familiarity with the cultural symbols and narratives embedded in the artwork. To evaluate cultural competence in this pragmatic generation task, we propose a framework based on culturally grounded question answering. We find that base models are only marginally adequate for this task, but, through a pragmatic speaker model, we can improve simulated listener comprehension by up to 8.2%. A human study further confirms that the model with higher pragmatic competence is rated as more helpful for comprehension by 8.0%.

Take Out Your Calculators: Estimating the Real Difficulty of Question Items with LLM Student Simulations

Standardized math assessments require expensive human pilot studies to establish the difficulty of test items. We investigate the predictive value of open-source large language models (LLMs) for evaluating the difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for real-world students. We show that, while LLMs are poor direct judges of problem difficulty, simulation-based approaches with LLMs yield promising results under the right conditions. Under the proposed approach, we simulate a "classroom" of 4th, 8th, or 12th grade students by prompting the LLM to role-play students of varying proficiency levels. We use the outcomes of these simulations to fit Item Response Theory (IRT) models, comparing learned difficulty parameters for items to their real-world difficulties, as determined by item-level statistics furnished by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We observe correlations as high as 0.75, 0.76, and 0.82 for grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively. In our simulations, we experiment with different "classroom sizes," showing tradeoffs between computation size and accuracy. We find that role-plays with named students improves predictions (compared to student ids), and stratifying names across gender and race further improves predictions. Our results show that LLMs with relatively weaker mathematical abilities (Gemma) actually yield better real-world difficulty predictions than mathematically stronger models (Llama and Qwen), further underscoring the suitability of open-source models for the task.