REVIEW 1 cited by
Shortcomings of LLMs for Low-Resource Translation: Retrieval and Understanding are Both the Problem
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This work investigates the in-context learning abilities of pretrained large language models (LLMs) when instructed to translate text from a low-resource language into a high-resource language as part of an automated machine translation pipeline. We conduct a set of experiments translating Southern Quechua to Spanish and examine the informativity of various types of context retrieved from a constrained database of digitized pedagogical materials (dictionaries and grammar lessons) and parallel corpora. Using both automatic and human evaluation of model output, we conduct ablation studies that manipulate (1) context type (morpheme translations, grammar descriptions, and corpus examples), (2) retrieval methods (automated vs. manual), and (3) model type. Our results suggest that even relatively small LLMs are capable of utilizing prompt context for zero-shot low-resource translation when provided a minimally sufficient amount of relevant linguistic information. However, the variable effects of context type, retrieval method, model type, and language-specific factors highlight the limitations of using even the best LLMs as translation systems for the majority of the world's 7,000+ languages and their speakers.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLMsAgainstHate @ NLU of Devanagari Script Languages 2025: Hate Speech Detection and Target Identification in Devanagari Languages via Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs
LoRA fine-tuning of Nemo-Instruct achieves the best F1 among four LLMs on Devanagari hate speech detection (90.05%) and target identification (71.47%), but without baseline comparisons the approach's efficacy is unproven.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.