LiT (Lost in Translation) - Humanities Abstracts: leaderboard

Metric: MQM>=80 rate (%): share of round-trip translations whose back-translation to English scores at least 80 on an MQM error scale (minor -1, major -5, critical -25) from a Grok 4.1 Fast judge comparing it with the English source; each passage is translated serially through a four-language sequence and back, averaged over eight sequences (high, medium and low-resource languages); humanities paper abstracts; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around January 2027. 22 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScore
1Gemma 4 31B (IT)71.2
2Qwen 3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)71.2
3Gemma 4 31B (IT) (Thinking)70.6
4Qwen 3.5 397B A17B70
5GLM-566.2
6GLM-4.763.8
7Kimi K2 (Thinking)63.1
8DeepSeek V3.2 Exp (Thinking)55
9DeepSeek V3.2 Exp (Non-reasoning)52.5
10GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)51.2
11Qwen 3 235B A22B 2507 (Thinking)49.4
12Qwen 3.5 35B A3B48.1
13Kimi K247.2
14Gemma 3 27B (IT)43.8
15Qwen 3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct39.4

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=lit-lost-in-translation-humanities-abstracts · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-10-07.