The paper presents a retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) system combined with prompt engineering for Japanese‑to‑Chinese translation, focusing on sentences with noun‑modifying clause constructions (NMCCs). It integrates linguistic analysis, embedding‑based retrieval, and prompt construction before generating translations with GPT‑4o, without altering the base model. Experiments on a 66‑sentence test set show that increasing the knowledge‑base size from 0 to 2,000 examples raises macro‑averaged BLEU scores from 24.28 to 29.96, indicating improved translation quality for NMCC‑rich sentences.
arXiv:2609.18156v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Teochew has a substantial speaker community and exhibits distinctive lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic features, yet textual resources for evaluating l...
Teochew has a substantial speaker community and exhibits distinctive lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic features, yet textual resources for evaluating large language models remain limited. We present T...
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.
arXiv:2608.23120v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pnar, an Austroasiatic language spoken by approximately 0.4 million people in the Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya, lacks the digital corpora and natural l...
arXiv:2601. 16217v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly mediate multilingual professional communication, where useful generation requires adapting to community conventions about which expressions are retained, translated, or mixed.
EviSI is an evidence‑based evaluation agent for low‑latency simultaneous speech‑to‑speech translation. It combines Multidimensional Quality Metrics with interpreter‑developed criteria, using shared source evidence to assess four dimensions—Anchor, Event, Logic, and Fluency—while deduplicating verified errors before scoring. On English‑to‑Chinese and Chinese‑to‑English data, EviSI’s rankings correlate strongly with human judgments, outperforming BLEU and COMET, and its multilingual extension maintains these correlations across five language directions.
arXiv:2607. 03160v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study examines how prompt language and translation theory-driven prompt design influence the quality of Spanish-Chinese journalistic translations generated by GPT-5.
arXiv:2606.26040v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers expe...
arXiv:2609.18284v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, three initiatives have emerged to develop generative language models in Hungary. The motivation behind them is the same. For Hungarian...
arXiv:2511.00421v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical applications, but their ability to detect and correct errors in clinical texts remains u...
Large Language Models (LLMs) are being tested as a cost‑effective alternative to human judgment for evaluating machine translation (MT). This study compares LLM agreement with human annotators on two MT quality schemes—Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA)—across 70 language pairs and public WMT23/25 data. Results show that while LLMs sometimes match or exceed human agreement, performance varies widely by scheme, language, and domain, and remains unreliable in many settings. The work also identifies specific challenges for both humans (e.g., fine‑grained MQM, low‑resource languages) and LLMs (e.g., minor errors, wrong language variants, span annotation).