Hallucinations in machine translation are translations that contain information completely unrelated to the input. Omissions are translations that do not include some of the input information. While both cases tend to be catastrophic errors undermining user trust, annotated data with these types of pathologies is extremely scarce and is limited to a few high-resource languages. In this work, we release an annotated dataset for the hallucination and omission phenomena covering 18 translation directions with varying resource levels and scripts. Our annotation covers different levels of partial and full hallucinations as well as omissions both at the sentence and at the word level. Additionally, we revisit previous methods for hallucination and omission detection, show that conclusions made based on a single language pair largely do not hold for a large-scale evaluation, and establish new solid baselines.

We introduce a multilingual extension of the HolisticBias dataset, the largest English template-based taxonomy of textual people references: Multilingual HolisticBias. This extension consists of 20,459 sentences in 50 languages distributed across 13 demographic axes. Source sentences are built from combinations of 118 demographic descriptors and three patterns, excluding nonsensical combinations. Multilingual translations include alternatives for gendered languages that cover gendered translations when there is ambiguity in English. Our dataset is intended to uncover demographic imbalances and be the tool to quantify mitigations towards them. Our initial findings show that translation quality for EN-to-XX translations is an average of almost 8 spBLEU better when evaluating with the masculine human reference compared to feminine. In the opposite direction, XX-to-EN, we compare the robustness of the model when the source input only differs in gender (masculine or feminine) and masculine translations are an average of almost 4 spBLEU better than feminine. When embedding sentences to a joint multilingual sentence representations space, we find that for most languages masculine translations are significantly closer to the English neutral sentences when embedded.

Gender biases in language generation systems are challenging to mitigate. One possible source for these biases is gender representation disparities in the training and evaluation data. Despite recent progress in documenting this problem and many attempts at mitigating it, we still lack shared methodology and tooling to report gender representation in large datasets. Such quantitative reporting will enable further mitigation, e.g., via data augmentation. This paper describes the Gender-Gap Pipeline (for Gender-Aware Polyglot Pipeline), an automatic pipeline to characterize gender representation in large-scale datasets for 55 languages. The pipeline uses a multilingual lexicon of gendered person-nouns to quantify the gender representation in text. We showcase it to report gender representation in WMT training data and development data for the News task, confirming that current data is skewed towards masculine representation. Having unbalanced datasets may indirectly optimize our systems towards outperforming one gender over the others. We suggest introducing our gender quantification pipeline in current datasets and, ideally, modifying them toward a balanced representation.

Machine Translation systems can produce different types of errors, some of which are characterized as critical or catastrophic due to the specific negative impact that they can have on users. In this paper we focus on one type of critical error: added toxicity. We evaluate and analyze added toxicity when translating a large evaluation dataset (HOLISTICBIAS, over 472k sentences, covering 13 demographic axes) from English into 164 languages. An automatic toxicity evaluation shows that added toxicity across languages varies from 0% to 5%. The output languages with the most added toxicity tend to be low-resource ones, and the demographic axes with the most added toxicity include sexual orientation, gender and sex, and ability. We also perform human evaluation on a subset of 8 translation directions, confirming the prevalence of true added toxicity. We use a measurement of the amount of source contribution to the translation, where a low source contribution implies hallucination, to interpret what causes toxicity. Making use of the input attributions allows us to explain toxicity, because the source contributions significantly correlate with toxicity for 84% of languages studied. Given our findings, our recommendations to reduce added toxicity are to curate training data to avoid mistranslations, mitigate hallucination and check unstable translations.