TeochewBench: A Human-Reviewed Benchmark for Teochew Hanzi Translation
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
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...
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: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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 20241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Culturally loaded translation poses unique challenges for machine translation (MT), as meanings are deeply embedded in socio-cultural contexts beyond surface linguistic forms.
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).