MEGA Hub

IndicQE-APE: A Benchmark for Quality Estimation and Automatic Post-Editing for Indic Languages

Authors

Do you know Diptesh Kanojia?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Archchana Sindhujan?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Sourabh Deoghare?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Daria Sokova?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Shenbin Qian?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Girish Koushik?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Tharindu Ranasinghe?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Constantin Orăsan?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Chrysoula Zerva?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Ricardo Rei?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Frédéric Blain?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know André F. T. Martins?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Marco Turchi?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Matteo Negri?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Rajen Chatterjee?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Anoop Kunchukuttan?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Mitesh M. Khapra?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Pushpak Bhattacharyya?You can claim authorship or link another user.

Abstract

Indic quality estimation (QE) and automatic post-editing (APE) data is spread across separate releases, so no single resource supports training and evaluation across tasks and language pairs on one footing. We consolidate the WMT 2020--2024 shared-task lineage with an extended English--Malayalam resource into \indicqe: $126{,}754$ instances over nine directional pairs, with up to four label types aligned on the same segment, a direct assessment, a human post-edit, word-level OK/BAD tags and an error explanation, and a test set stratified over four difficulty axes. On it, we benchmark six prompted LLMs and three COMET metrics on segment-level QE, and three systems on APE. Two of the axes are defined partly on the direct assessment and select a compressed slice of it, so each axis is compared against a control drawn from the same language pair with the same score distribution. Only one survives that control: segments whose holistic and token-level quality signals conflict are ranked worse than equally-scored segments of the same language, for all nine systems and all seven pairs that carry the axis. Annotator disagreement, which looks second-hardest without the control, has no effect with it. Few-shot prompting costs every model $\leq$ $3.4$B both correlation and output-format compliance. Within-language accuracy does not make scores comparable across pairs: of the three trained metrics, the one with the best within-language correlation loses most when the pairs are pooled. The benchmark and code will be released.

Community

00

Publication notes

Author note
Submitted to WMT 2026 for review