Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Are AI agents the new machine translation frontier? Challenges and opportunities of single- and multi-agent systems for multilingual digital communication

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a four-agent AI workflow can outperform standard neural machine translation on legal documents, using a pilot study to back the claim.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy and an honest pilot, but the missing single-agent baseline makes the central claim untestable; the observed gains track model size, not workflow structure. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12891 v1 pith:ZDPJI7ZA submitted 2025-04-17 cs.CL cs.AIcs.ETcs.HC

Vicent Briva-Iglesias This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.ETcs.HC
keywords AIagentsmulti-agentsystemsmachinetranslationlegallargelanguagemodelsqualityevaluationLangGraphtemperaturetuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that machine translation built from collaborating AI agents, rather than a single monolithic translation engine, is a promising direction for high-stakes domains such as legal text. It reports a pilot study in which a four-agent workflow (translator, adequacy reviewer, fluency reviewer, and editor) powered by a large reasoning model scored higher on adequacy and fluency than two leading commercial NMT systems on one English-to-Spanish legal contract. The paper also lays out a taxonomy of multi-agent workflows, including prompt chaining, routing, parallelization, orchestrator-workers, and evaluator-optimizer, as a framework for future research. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that the architecture of role-specialized agents, not just the underlying model, is what lifts translation quality. The authors themselves caution that definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn from this pilot.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the four-agent parallel workflow: a Translator-Agent produces an initial translation; an Adequacy Reviewer-Agent and a Fluency Reviewer-Agent review it in parallel and return bullet-point error and suggestion lists; an Editor-Agent merges the suggestions into a final polished translation. The agents are implemented in a graph-based orchestration tool, and the pipeline is compared across two model sizes and two temperature strategies. The key experimental lever is the split-temperature setting (higher temperature for translation and editing, lower for reviewing), intended to balance creative phrasing with deterministic validation.

What would settle it

Run a pre-registered, blind evaluation with multiple professional translators over several contracts in multiple language pairs, comparing the four-agent workflow against commercial NMT systems under matched conditions. If the multi-agent system does not consistently win on adequacy and fluency, or if the NMT systems draw even when given equivalent glossary access, the paper's comparative claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a multi-agent workflow with four specialized agents, Translator, Adequacy Reviewer, Fluency Reviewer, and Editor, produces higher translation quality than traditional NMT systems and single-agent approaches for legal translation. In a pilot on a 2,547-word English legal contract translated into Spanish, the two configurations using a large reasoning model achieved the best adequacy and fluency scores and the most first-place rankings, while configurations using a smaller model scored below the NMT baselines. The paper attributes the gain to the multi-agent architecture simulating human translation-team roles, and notes that external tools like glossaries and retrieval were deliberately not used, suggesting further headroom.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one professional translator's adequacy and fluency scores on a single 100-segment legal contract reliably measure translation quality differences across systems, with no blind protocol, no second annotator, and no significance testing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pilot holds, role-specialized agent workflows could become a default architecture for domain-specific MT, because they add quality control without fine-tuning.
  • Model size dominates in this setup: smaller models underperformed the NMT baselines, so the architectural benefit only appears with a sufficiently capable base model.
  • Temperature differentiation is a cheap tuning knob: in the large-model systems, lower reviewer temperature gave the best adequacy scores.
  • Because external tools were deliberately excluded, adding retrieval, glossaries, or translation memories to the reviewer agents may push quality even higher.
  • The five-pattern taxonomy gives researchers a shared vocabulary for designing and comparing agent-based MT systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if the architecture is what matters, the same four-agent workflow should beat commercial NMT on other domains and language pairs, not just legal English-to-Spanish.
  • The ranking results hint that the NMT systems' errors are systematic, such as currency formatting and inconsistent terminology, so a targeted error-analysis study could identify exactly which error classes multi-agent systems fix.
  • Cost is the hidden constraint: the four-agent pipeline multiplies token usage with four LLM calls per segment, and the paper's own sustainability discussion suggests hybrid routing, small models for easy segments and big multi-agent workflows for hard ones, as a natural next step.
  • The authors' caveat that 'definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn' is the right reading: with one evaluator and one document, the superiority claim is a hypothesis to test, not an established fact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a taxonomy of AI-agent workflows for machine translation (prompt chaining, routing, parallelization, orchestrator-workers, evaluator-optimizer) and reports a pilot study in which a four-agent parallel workflow (Translator, Adequacy Reviewer, Fluency Reviewer, Editor) is evaluated for English-to-Spanish legal contract translation. Four multi-agent configurations, varying underlying LLM (DeepSeek R1 vs. gpt-4o-mini) and temperature settings, are compared against DeepL and Google Translate using adequacy, fluency, and ranking scores from one professional evaluator. The paper concludes that multi-agent workflows achieve higher translation quality than traditional NMT and/or single-agent systems, and that model size and temperature affect performance. The authors share a public demo and the evaluation dataset on Zenodo.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to the emerging area of LLM-agent-based MT, and its taxonomy of workflows could help structure future research. The author is transparent about the pilot nature of the study, discloses the agent prompts in Appendix A, and makes the demo and data available. However, the central comparative claim—that multi-agent architecture, rather than the underlying model, explains the observed quality advantage—is not testable from the reported design because no single-agent LLM baseline is included. The evaluation also rests on a single evaluator and a single document without significance testing. These issues currently place the paper closer to a position paper with an illustrative pilot than to an empirical demonstration of multi-agent superiority.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 and §6] RQ1 asks how multi-agent systems compare with single-agent approaches, and both the abstract and Section 6 claim superiority over 'traditional MT or single-agent systems.' Yet the design in Section 4.2 compares only four multi-agent configurations against DeepL and Google Translate. There is no condition in which the same underlying LLM (DeepSeek R1 or gpt-4o-mini) is given the Translator-Agent prompt without the Reviewer and Editor agents. Consequently, the observed advantage of Multi-Agent Big 1.3 over DeepL and Google Translate cannot be attributed to the multi-agent architecture; it may simply reflect DeepSeek R1's intrinsic translation quality. This is not merely a hypothetical concern: Multi-Agent Small (gpt-4o-mini) scored below both NMT baselines, showing that the pattern across configurations tracks model strength, not workflow structure. The central comparison in RQ1 is therefore unanswerable from the reported design, and the abstract and conclusion overstate the findings.
  2. [§4.3 and §5] The evaluation uses a single professional evaluator, a single test document (one legal contract, 100 segments), and a single language pair, with no inter-annotator agreement, no blind protocol, and no significance testing. The reported differences between the top configurations are small (e.g., fluency 3.52 vs. 3.48; adequacy 3.68 vs. 3.69), and the ranking evaluation permits ties, yet no statistical analysis is provided to indicate whether any observed difference exceeds chance. As a result, the strong phrasing of Section 5 and Section 6—'multi-agent workflows obtain higher translation quality than traditional NMT systems'—is not supported by the evidence. The authors do acknowledge the 'modest evaluation size,' but the claims in the abstract and conclusion are not correspondingly hedged.
  3. [§5] The claim that 'higher temperatures for Reviewer-Agents correlated with stronger adequacy and fluency scores' is contradicted by the reported numbers. Comparing the all-1.3 vs. the 1.3/0.5 configurations: for the Small systems, Multi-Agent Small 1.3 scores higher than Small 1.3/0.5 in both adequacy (3.47 vs. 3.44) and fluency (3.31 vs. 3.23), even though the 1.3/0.5 configuration uses lower reviewer temperature. For the Big systems, the differences are mixed and negligible (adequacy 3.68 vs. 3.69; fluency 3.52 vs. 3.48). No systematic relationship between reviewer temperature and quality is visible, so the temperature conclusion in Section 5 is unsupported.
  4. [§5] The conclusion that 'larger models tend to perform better in multi-agent settings' is confounded in this design. The comparison is between DeepSeek R1 and gpt-4o-mini, which differ not only in parameter count but also in model family, training data, architecture, and provider. Parameter size is not isolated, so the reported performance gap cannot be attributed to model size specifically. A controlled comparison would require holding the model family constant while varying size, or at least acknowledging this confound explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses present-tense 'we are conducting a pilot study' while reporting findings, which is inconsistent with the completed evaluation described in Sections 4 and 5.
  2. [§6] The phrase 'one of the early analysis' should be 'one of the early analyses.'
  3. [Appendix A] The appendix states that 'the system instructions and the code are not shared due to it being a proprietary product,' but the central instructions are actually disclosed in Table 1. The lack of the code itself is acceptable for a demo-based paper, but the wording is misleading because only the code is withheld.
  4. [Figure 5] The text explains that ranking scores range from 1 to 4 because ties occurred, but it does not report how ties were resolved or whether the evaluator was allowed to rank systems that were tied. This should be clarified for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's comparative claims rest on an external pilot evaluation, not on fitted parameters, definitional equivalence, or a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The central empirical claim is that multi-agent workflows obtain higher translation quality than traditional NMT systems and/or single-agent systems in the tested use case, but this claim is supported by an external pilot comparison of four multi-agent configurations against DeepL and Google Translate, with adequacy, fluency, and ranking scores provided by a professional evaluator. There are no fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions: the agent roles are fixed prompt templates disclosed in Appendix A, the underlying models are external systems (DeepSeek-R1 and gpt-4o-mini), and the NMT baselines are independent commercial systems. The workflow taxonomy in Section 3 is explicitly credited to Anthropic's blog rather than to the author's prior work. Self-citations (Briva-Iglesias 2021, 2024; Briva-Iglesias et al. 2023, 2024) appear only for background on legal MT, prior LLM translation studies, and human-evaluation methodology; they do not supply the pilot's comparative result or forbid alternative designs. The skeptical concern that no same-LLM single-agent condition was run is a genuine experimental confound for attributing gains to the multi-agent architecture, and the single-evaluator, single-document design limits generalizability, but these are validity threats, not circularity. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain reduces the paper's conclusion to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pilot's comparative claims rest on a small evaluation design. The temperature settings are hand-chosen experimental conditions rather than fitted parameters. No mathematical derivation or fitted model is involved, so the central claim depends on the validity of the evaluation assumptions listed above.

free parameters (1)
  • Temperature settings for agents = 1.3 for translator/editor, 0.5 for reviewers in two configurations
    Hand-chosen experimental conditions. The paper draws conclusions about temperature impact from comparing configurations with these values, but they are not optimized or fitted.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A single professional evaluator's scores on 4-point adequacy/fluency scales and rankings are a valid and generalizable measure of translation quality.
    The pilot uses one evaluator with 10+ years of experience on one legal contract (Section 4.3); the comparative claims generalize only if this measurement is representative.
  • domain assumption DeepSeek R1 (671B) and GPT-4o-mini differ primarily in model size, so observed performance differences are attributable to size.
    Section 4.2 labels these as 'Big' and 'Small', but they differ in architecture, training data, and provider; RQ4 assumes size is the operative variable.
  • domain assumption The multi-agent workflow without external tools is a fair comparison against the NMT baselines.
    Section 4.1 notes no RAG or domain databases were used; the comparison assumes the agent architecture itself, not additional tooling, drives any quality difference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are AI agents the new machine translation frontier? Challenges and opportunities of single- and multi-agent systems for multilingual digital communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDPJI7ZA

@misc{pith2026250412891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are AI agents the new machine translation frontier? Challenges and opportunities of single- and multi-agent systems for multilingual digital communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDPJI7ZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12891}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced AI agents as a disruptive paradigm across various industries, yet their application in machine translation (MT) remains underexplored. This paper describes and analyses the potential of single- and multi-agent systems for MT, reflecting on how they could enhance multilingual digital communication. While single-agent systems are well-suited for simpler translation tasks, multi-agent systems, which involve multiple specialized AI agents collaborating in a structured manner, may offer a promising solution for complex scenarios requiring high accuracy, domain-specific knowledge, and contextual awareness. To demonstrate the feasibility of multi-agent workflows in MT, we are conducting a pilot study in legal MT. The study employs a multi-agent system involving four specialized AI agents for (i) translation, (ii) adequacy review, (iii) fluency review, and (iv) final editing. Our findings suggest that multi-agent systems may have the potential to significantly improve domain-adaptability and contextual awareness, with superior translation quality to traditional MT or single-agent systems. This paper also sets the stage for future research into multi-agent applications in MT, integration into professional translation workflows, and shares a demo of the system analyzed in the paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of single- and multi-agent sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Some potential customisations of multi-agent workflows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-agent workflow analysed in the pilot study + demo. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fluency-Adequacy results. 5 Discussion of the results This section presents the results of the comparative evaluation of the multi-agent and the NMT sys￾tems. First, the fluency and adequacy scores are discussed, followed by the overall ranking distribu￾tion [PITH_FUL…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ranking results. the dollar sign should go after the number, and dots should be the thousands separator. All the multi-agent systems (both in Big and Small sizes) correctly translated this currency as “1.000.000 USD”. Similarly, Multi-Agent Systems demon￾strated higher…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Improving Low-Resource Translation with Dictionary-Guided Fine-Tuning and RL: A Spanish-to-Wayuunaiki Study

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dictionary-guided reinforcement learning improves Spanish-to-Wayuunaiki translation BLEU from 0.93 to 4.45 on the AmericasNLP 2025 test set.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Vicent Briva-Iglesias . 2021. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.mut.v14n2a14 Traducci \'o n humana vs. traducci \'o n autom \'a tica: an \'a lisis contrastivo e implicaciones para la aplicaci \'o n de la traducci \'o n autom \'a tica en traducci \'o n jur \'i dica . Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducci \'o n , 14(2):571--600

    work page doi:10.17533/udea.mut.v14n2a14 2021

  2. [2]

    Vicent Briva-Iglesias . 2024. https://doi.org/https://doras.dcu.ie/30182/ Fostering Human-Centered, Augmented Machine Translation: Analysing Interactive Post-Editing . Doctoral thesis, Dublin City University

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    ad referendum

    Vicent Briva-Iglesias , Gokhan Dogru, and Jo \ a o Lucas Cavalheiro Camargo. 2024. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2024.16.02 Large language models "ad referendum": How good are they at machine translation in the legal domain? MonTI. Monograf \'i as de Traducci \'o n e Interpretaci \'o n , (16):75--107

    doi:10.6035/monti.2024.16.02 2024

  4. [4]

    Vicent Briva-Iglesias , Sharon O'Brien, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00077.bri The impact of traditional and interactive post-editing on Machine Translation User Experience , quality, and productivity: . Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 6(1)

    work page doi:10.1075/tcb.00077.bri 2023

  5. [5]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss , Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwi...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 2020

  6. [6]

    Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Zhengwen Zhang, Xiangrui Meng, Sirui Hong, Wenhao Li, Zihao Wang, Zekai Wang, Feng Yin, Junhua Zhao, and Xiuqiang He. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.03428 Exploring Large Language Model based Intelligent Agents : Definitions , Methods , and Prospects . Preprint, arXiv:2401.03428

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.03428 2024

  7. [7]

    Simone Conia, Daniel Lee, Min Li, Umar Farooq Minhas, Saloni Potdar, and Yunyao Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.14057 Towards Cross-Cultural Machine Translation with Retrieval-Augmented Generation from Multilingual Knowledge Graphs . Preprint, arXiv:2410.14057

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14057 2024

  8. [8]

    DeepSeek-AI , Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Yihong Dong, Xue Jiang, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.07590 Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPT . Preprint, arXiv:2304.07590

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yuan Gao, Ruili Wang, and Feng Hou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02182 How to Design Translation Prompts for ChatGPT : An Empirical Study . Preprint, arXiv:2304.02182

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Izzeddin Gur, Hiroki Furuta, Austin Huang, Mustafa Safdari, Yutaka Matsuo, Douglas Eck, and Aleksandra Faust. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.12856 A Real-World WebAgent with Planning , Long Context Understanding , and Program Synthesis . Preprint, arXiv:2307.12856

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.09210 How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation ? A Comprehensive Evaluation . Pre...

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Junyan Hu, Parijat Bhowmick, Inmo Jang, Farshad Arvin, and Alexander Lanzon. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2021.3071615 A Decentralized Cluster Formation Containment Framework for Multirobot Systems . IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37(6):1936--1955

    2021

  6. [14]

    Dorothy Kenny. 2022. Human and machine translation. Machine translation for everyone: Empowering users in the age of artificial intelligence, 18:23

    2022

  7. [15]

    Geunwoo Kim, Pierre Baldi, and Stephen McAleer. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.17491 Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks . Preprint, arXiv:2303.17491

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Samuel L \"a ubli, Sheila Castilho, Graham Neubig, Rico Sennrich, Qinlan Shen, and Antonio Toral. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11371 A Set of Recommendations for Assessing Human -- Machine Parity in Language Translation . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67...

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval- Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks . In Ad...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Huayang Li, Yixuan Su, Deng Cai, Yan Wang, and Lemao Liu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.01110 A Survey on Retrieval-Augmented Text Generation . Preprint, arXiv:2202.01110

    2022 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yuan Li, Yixuan Zhang, and Lichao Sun. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06500 MetaAgents : Simulating Interactions of Human Behaviors for LLM-based Task-oriented Coordination via Collaborative Generative Agents . Preprint, arXiv:2310.06500

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lillicrap, Jonathan J

    Timothy P. Lillicrap, Jonathan J. Hunt, Alexander Pritzel, Nicolas Heess, Tom Erez, Yuval Tassa, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1509.02971 Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:1509.02971

    2019 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A. Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K. Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, Stig Petersen, Charles Beattie, Amir Sadik, Ioannis Antonoglou, Helen King, Dharshan Kumaran, Daan Wierstra, ...

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Vicent Montalt-Resurrecci \'o , Isabel Garc \'i a-Izquierdo , and Ana Mu \ n oz-Miquel . 2024. Patient- Centred Translation and Communication . Taylor & Francis

    2024

  15. [23]

    Andrew Ng. 2025. Andrewyng/translation-agent

    2025

  16. [24]

    Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, Juyuan Xu, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.07924 ChatDev : Communicative Agents for Software Development . Prepri...

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 1995. Intelligent agents. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 74:46--47

    1995

  18. [26]

    Samuel Schmidgall, Yusheng Su, Ze Wang, Ximeng Sun, Jialian Wu, Xiaodong Yu, Jiang Liu, Zicheng Liu, and Emad Barsoum. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.04227 Agent Laboratory : Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants . Preprint, arXiv:2501.04227

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    King-kui Sin, Xi Xuan, Chunyu Kit, Clara Ho-yan Chan, and Honic Ho-kin Ip. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.09444 Solving the Unsolvable : Translating Case Law in Hong Kong . Preprint, arXiv:2501.09444

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762 Attention Is All You Need . Preprint, arXiv:1706.03762

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhewei Wei, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents . Fronti...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Ni, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo

    Saizhuo Wang, Hang Yuan, Leon Zhou, Lionel M. Ni, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.00016 Alpha- GPT : Human-AI Interactive Alpha Mining for Quantitative Investment . Preprint, arXiv:2308.00016

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Minghao Wu, Yulin Yuan, Gholamreza Haffari, and Longyue Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.11804 ( Perhaps ) Beyond Human Translation : Harnessing Multi-Agent Collaboration for Translating Ultra-Long Literary Texts . Preprint, arXiv:2405.11804

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.03629 ReAct : Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models . Preprint, arXiv:2210.03629

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Saadia Zahidi. 2025. Future of Jobs Report 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Mingchen Zhuge, Haozhe Liu, Francesco Faccio, Dylan R. Ashley, R \'o bert Csord \'a s, Anand Gopalakrishnan, Abdullah Hamdi, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Vincent Herrmann, Kazuki Irie, Louis Kirsch, Bing Li, Guohao Li, Shuming Liu, Jinjie Mai, Piotr Pi e kos, Aditya Ramesh, Im...

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  28. [36]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.