Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
COMET reports translation quality as a single number, and that number is routinely compared across target languages written in different scripts. Such a comparison assumes Script Invariance: the score should not depend on the writing system that carries the target. We test it on IndicMT Eval by re-encoding the target into Latin script, which changes orthographic form while holding content and human ratings fixed. Script identity then accounts for 22.9% of native-script COMET variance, and agreement with annotators falls in all five languages studied. We trace the effect to the tokeniser and measure it with three label-free diagnostics. The bias is two faults, not one. Scores from different scripts occupy incompatible ranges, and within a single script the metric orders translations less accurately. No order-preserving transform of the score can repair the second fault. The first is removed exactly by COMET-QN, which maps the score distribution of each (language, script) pair onto a shared reference. Pooled agreement with annotators rises from 0.300 to 0.399, which is what makes scores from different scripts safe to place on one axis, and every within-language ordering is provably preserved. A regressor over parity features recovers a further 17.1% of the lost sensitivity. The remainder belongs to the encoder, and no post-processing can reach it. We therefore recommend publishing the normalised score, the three diagnostics, and the identity of the tokeniser they were computed against, so that a reader can tell how much of a score reflects translation quality and how much reflects the writing system.