arXiv Computation and Language By Julian Schelb, Michael Wittweiler, Marie Revellio, Barbara Feichtinger, Andreas Spitz

Loci Similes: A Benchmark for Extracting Intertextualities in Latin Literature

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces Loci Similes, a benchmark for detecting intertextual links in Latin literature. It provides a curated dataset of about 176,000 text segments and 1,490 expert-verified parallels, including 945 labeled references from an existing source. Baselines for retrieval and classification are established using both lexical methods and pretrained encoder language models.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

Learning from Many Voices: Literary MT Using Multi-Reference Human and Synthetic Data

The paper explores how to improve literary machine translation by using datasets that contain multiple valid translations of the same source text. It introduces a filtering framework that selects source texts whose references show meaningful variation while staying faithful, based on semantic similarity. Experiments show that fine‑tuning on medium to high similarity data outperforms low similarity data, and that using only this filtered subset can match or exceed performance achieved with the full unfiltered set. Additionally, the study compares synthetic translations generated by large language models with human expert translations, finding that fine‑tuning on human expert data yields better results in both automatic metrics and human evaluations, underscoring the continued importance of expert translations for literary MT.

By Si Wu, John Wieting, David A. Smith
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.

By Xiulin Yang, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Catherine Arnett