LiT (Lost in Translation) Robustness - Syntactic Complexity and Garden Paths: 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); robustness subset: garden-path and complex syntax; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around January 2027. 22 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScore
1GLM-563.5
2Qwen 3.5 397B A17B62.5
3Qwen 3 235B A22B 2507 (Thinking)51
4Kimi K2 (Thinking)51
5GLM-4.746.9
6Gemma 4 31B (IT) (Thinking)46.9
7Gemma 4 31B (IT)44.8
8DeepSeek V3.2 Exp (Non-reasoning)44.8
9GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)43.8
10MiniMax-M2.542.7
11Qwen 3.5 397B A17B (Non-reasoning)41.7
12DeepSeek V3.2 Exp (Thinking)40.6
13Qwen 3.5 35B A3B37.5
14Kimi K231.5
15MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)30.2

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=lit-lost-in-translation-robustness-syntactic-complexity-and-garden-paths · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-10-07.