This paper presents the results of the General Machine Translation Task organized as part of the 2025 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT). Participants were invited to build systems for any of 30 language pairs. For half of these pairs, we conducted a human evaluation on test sets spanning four to five different domains.We evaluated 60 systems in total: 36 submitted by participants and 24 for which we collected translations from large language models (LLMs) and popular online translation providers.This year, we focused on creating challenging test sets by developing a difficulty sampling technique and using more complex source data. We evaluated system outputs with professional annotators using the Error Span Annotation (ESA) protocol, except for two language pairs, for which we used Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) instead.We continued the trend of increasingly moving towards document-level translation, providing the source texts as whole documents containing multiple paragraphs.

The WMT25 Multilingual Instruction Shared Task (MIST) introduces a benchmark to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across 30 languages. The benchmark covers five types of problems: machine translation, linguistic reasoning, open-ended generation, cross-lingual summarization, and LLM-as-a-judge.We provide automatic evaluation and collect human annotations, which highlight the limitations of automatic evaluation and allow further research into metric meta-evaluation. We run on our benchmark a diverse set of open- and closed-weight LLMs, providing a broad assessment of the multilingual capabilities of current LLMs. Results highlight substantial variation across sub-tasks and languages, revealing persistent challenges in reasoning, cross-lingual generation, and evaluation reliability. This work establishes a standardized framework for measuring future progress in multilingual LLM development.

This overview paper presents the results of the General Machine Translation Task organised as part of the 2024 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT). In the general MT task, participants were asked to build machine translation systems for any of 11 language pairs, to be evaluated on test sets consisting of three to five different domains. In addition to participating systems, we collected translations from 8 different large language models (LLMs) and 4 online translation providers. We evaluate system outputs with professional human annotators using a new protocol called Error Span Annotations (ESA).

High-quality Machine Translation (MT) evaluation relies heavily on human judgments.Comprehensive error classification methods, such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are expensive as they are time-consuming and can only be done by experts, whose availability may be limited especially for low-resource languages.On the other hand, just assigning overall scores, like Direct Assessment (DA), is simpler and faster and can be done by translators of any level, but is less reliable.In this paper, we introduce Error Span Annotation (ESA), a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level error severity span marking of MQM.We validate ESA by comparing it to MQM and DA for 12 MT systems and one human reference translation (English to German) from WMT23. The results show that ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts.

This paper presents the results of the General Machine Translation Task organised as part of the 2023 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT). In the general MT task, participants were asked to build machine translation systems for any of 8 language pairs (corresponding to 14 translation directions), to be evaluated on test sets consisting of up to four different domains. We evaluate system outputs with professional human annotators using a combination of source-based Direct Assessment and scalar quality metric (DA+SQM).

In this paper we show how different types of spelling errors influence the quality of machine translation. We also propose a method to evaluate the impact of spelling errors correction on translation quality without expensive manual work of providing reference translations.