How Good Are LLMs for Literary Translation, Really? Literary Translation Evaluation with Humans and LLMs

Recent research has focused on literary machine translation (MT) as a new challenge in MT. However, the evaluation of literary MT remains an open problem. We contribute to this ongoing discussion by introducing LITEVAL-CORPUS, a paragraph-level parallel corpus comprising multiple verified human translations and outputs from 9 MT systems, which totals over 2k paragraphs and includes 13k annotated sentences across four language pairs, costing 4.5k Euro. This corpus enables us to (i) examine the consistency and adequacy of multiple annotation schemes, (ii) compare evaluations by students and professionals, and (iii) assess the effectiveness of LLM-based metrics. We find that Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), as the de facto standard in non-literary human MT evaluation, is inadequate for literary translation: While Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) with students and Scalar Quality Metric (SQM) with professional translators prefer human translations at rates of ~82% and ~94%, respectively, MQM with student annotators prefers human professional translations over the translations of the best-performing LLMs in only ~42% of cases. While automatic metrics generally show a moderate correlation with human MQM and SQM, they struggle to accurately identify human translations, with rates of at most ~20%. Our overall evaluation indicates that human professional translations consistently outperform LLM translations, where even the most recent LLMs tend to produce more literal and less diverse translations compared to human translations. However, newer LLMs such as GPT-4o perform substantially better than older ones.