We investigate the translation quality of current large language models (LLMs) for English-to-Hausa and English-to-Fongbe - two typologically distinct West African languages from the Afroasiatic and Niger-Congo families respectively - and evaluate whether standard automatic metrics reliably reflect human judgment for these low-resource languages. We evaluate four models (GPT-4o Mini, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Qwen2.5-7B) at progressive scales (500 to 10,000 sentences) using automatic metrics (BLEU, chrF++, TER, COMET, BERTScore) validated against native-speaker judgment. Our results reveal three key findings. First, translation quality varies substantially by language: Hausa achieves acceptable quality (human scores 4.0-4.5/5) while Fongbe achieves poor quality (1.0-2.2/5), with a consistent 3x BLEU gap across all systems. Second, model rankings differ by language - Gemini leads for Fongbe while GPT-4o leads for Hausa by human evaluation - indicating that performance on one low-resource African language does not predict performance on another. Third, metric-human correlation varies dramatically: perfect rank correlation for Fongbe (rho=1.0) but weak correlation for Hausa (rho=0.5), where human evaluators preferred GPT-4o despite all automatic metrics ranking Claude first. We further show that neural metrics like BERTScore exhibit embedding collapse (within-language similarity >0.99) for both languages, limiting their ability to differentiate translation quality. Based on these findings, we recommend multi-metric evaluation for low-resource African languages, with particular caution when interpreting neural metrics. We establish that minimum sample sizes of n=2,500 sentences are required for stable system rankings, as smaller samples produced artifact findings that reversed at scale.

翻译：暂无翻译