Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

TAT-R1: Terminology-Aware Translation with Reinforcement Learning and Word Alignment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Word-alignment rewards sharpen RL translation on terminology, lifting the terminology accuracy on the RTT test from 54.42 to 56.42 while holding general quality.

desk verdict New reward design, but single-run results make the two-point terminology gain unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21172 v1 pith:75KFZ6WY submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CL

Zheng Li , Mao Zheng , Mingyang Song , Wenjie Yang This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords terminology-awaretranslationreinforcementlearningwordalignmentGRPOmachinerewarddesignreasoningLLMsterminologyaccuracy
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 reinforcement learning for machine translation can be made terminology-aware by rewarding the model for aligning key source nouns to their translations, rather than relying on terminology databases or detection at inference. It proposes TAT-R1, a 7B instruction-tuned model trained with GRPO on a hybrid reward that combines a format reward, a COMET quality reward, and three word-alignment-based rewards. On the English-to-German RTT terminology test, TAT-R1 raises terminology accuracy from 54.42 to 56.42 while the average of BLEU, COMETKiwi, XCOMET, and TA rises from 59.84 to 62.14. The paper also reports that RL generalizes to an out-of-distribution language pair where supervised fine-tuning collapses, and that adding a BLEU reward improves BLEU but hurts semantic metrics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the word-alignment reward family computed from SimAlign alignments restricted to source nouns. For a source-reference pair and a source-prediction pair, the aligner produces $A_{\text{ref}}$ and $A_{\text{pre}}$; NER keeps only noun-token alignments, yielding key alignments. $R_{\text{aaw}}$ is the overlap of key aligned word pairs between prediction and reference, normalized by source plus prediction length to discourage verbose outputs; $R_{\text{aao}}$ is the fraction of reference order pairs preserved in the prediction; $R_{\text{taw}}$ counts how many key aligned word pairs appear in the <think> section. These rewards are combined as $R_{\text{all}} = R_{\text{comet}} + \alpha R_{\text{aaw}} + \beta R_{\text{aao}} + \gamma R_{\text{taw}}$ when format is valid, and zero otherwise, grounding the RL signal in localized terminology correctness.

What would settle it

Compute the alignment rewards on the RTT training samples and compare them against a human-annotated set of correct terminology translations; if the reward frequently scores a mistranslated term as correct, or a correct term as wrong, then the RTT gain likely comes from reward hacking rather than genuine terminology learning. A simpler check: replace SimAlign alignments with random noun alignments and see whether terminology accuracy still rises.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that word-alignment information extracted from parallel data can serve as a dense, rule-based reward signal that teaches a translation model to render key terms faithfully. Given a source sentence, its reference, and the model's prediction, the paper runs an unsupervised aligner (SimAlign) to obtain token alignments, prunes them to nouns via NER, and computes three rewards: answer-align-word (overlap of aligned noun pairs between prediction and reference), answer-align-order (preservation of their relative order), and think-align-word (whether the model's reasoning text mentions the aligned pairs). Trained with GRPO, the resulting TAT-R1 improves terminology accuracy on the RTT benchmark while keeping general translation quality on WMT ZH-to-EN and EN-to-ZH at or above the COMET-reward-only baseline. The authors report that these gains transfer to an out-of-distribution EN-to-DE setting where SFT fails, and that adding the reward components one at a time yields steady improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that SimAlign's alignments, after NER keeps only nouns, reliably identify the key terms that must be rewarded; noisy or non-noun key terminology would make the reward reinforce the wrong tokens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Terminology translation improves without a terminology database or inference-time term detection, because the alignment rewards are computed only during training.
  • The gains transfer out of distribution: RL-trained TAT-R1 improves EN-to-DE RTT scores even though training is ZH-to-EN and EN-to-ZH, while SFT on the same data collapses the EN-to-DE output to near-zero.
  • Each alignment reward component is additive: adding answer-align-word, then answer-align-order, then think-align-word successively raises average scores on WMT and RTT.
  • A BLEU reward trade-off is confirmed: it inflates BLEU but lowers COMET and fluency, whereas the alignment rewards improve lexical and semantic quality together.
  • The think-align-word reward changes the reasoning trace from boilerplate statements to explicit consideration of key terms, and this correlates with higher terminology accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the central mechanism predicts that alignment quality is the bottleneck: if SimAlign misaligns a key term, the reward reinforces a wrong association, so evaluating alignment accuracy on the training set would clarify how much of the RTT gain is genuine terminology learning.
  • The paper restricts key tokens to NER-detected nouns; a direct extension would test whether the same reward still works when key terminology is verbal, multi-word, or non-named-entity, which the current design leaves invisible.
  • The out-of-distribution EN-to-DE result suggests RL with alignment rewards might adapt terminology skills to new language pairs with little data, but the paper does not test larger terminology benchmarks, so that generalization remains a hypothesis.
  • A natural next experiment, which the paper lists as future work, is to pair the alignment rewards with a learned reference-based metric such as MetricX; that would test whether the gains come from the term-level signal or from COMET's semantic scoring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TAT-R1, a terminology-aware translation model trained with GRPO using three word-alignment-based rewards (answer-align-word, answer-align-order, think-align-word) combined with a COMET reward and a format reward. The method first extracts word alignments with SimAlign, restricts the key alignments to nouns via NER, and then uses these alignments to compute rewards that encourage accurate translation of key terms. Experiments on WMT23 ZH->EN, WMT24 EN->ZH, and the RTT EN->DE terminology test set report improvements in BLEU, COMETKiwi, XCOMET, and terminology accuracy (TA), with ablations showing incremental gains from each alignment reward. The abstract claims that TAT-R1 significantly improves terminology translation accuracy while maintaining comparable general translation quality.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the contribution is useful and timely: it provides a simple, rule-based way to inject terminology awareness into RL training for translation without requiring terminology detection at inference, and the ablation sequence cleanly isolates the effect of each reward component. The terminology metric TA is computed from test-set annotations rather than from the reward functions, so the main claim is externally grounded and not circular. The method is also transparent and reproducible in principle, with code, data, and models promised for release. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of statistical rigor: all conclusions rest on single-run point estimates, and the alignment-quality assumption underlying the rewards is not validated. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim and require attention before the results can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Tables 1-3 and Figure 4] All reported results are single-run point estimates. GRPO with sampling temperature 1.0 and 16 rollouts per group is stochastic, and the RTT test set contains only 500 sentences; the reported 2.00-point TA improvement (56.42 vs 54.42) and the smaller ablation increments in Figure 4 could easily fall within run-to-run noise. The abstract's "significantly improves" requires multiple seeds (at least three), standard deviations, and a significance test (e.g., paired bootstrap or approximate randomization) on the key metrics. Without this, the central claim that word-alignment rewards improve terminology accuracy is not statistically established.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The rewards are computed from SimAlign alignments filtered by NER to retain only nouns, but the paper provides no validation of either component on the training or test data. Noisy alignments, or an aggressive noun filter that misses key terminology, would reward the wrong tokens and could produce apparent RTT gains through reward hacking rather than genuine terminology learning. Please report alignment quality (e.g., alignment error rate on a sample), the coverage of RTT source terms by the noun filter, and ideally an analysis of whether TA improvements are concentrated in correctly aligned, noun-filtered terms.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (11) and §3.1] The three reward weights alpha=1, beta=0.1, and gamma=0.1 are chosen without sensitivity analysis, and the ablation increments in Figure 4 are small enough that the conclusions may hinge on this particular weighting. A small grid search or one-at-a-time sensitivity study is needed to show that the method is not brittle to these hyperparameters and that the reported ordering of configurations is stable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2, SFT row] The SFT model scores 0.00 on BLEU, COMETKiwi, and XCOMET and 0.08 on TA because it apparently translates English-to-German input into Chinese, but the table does not explain this; consider a footnote or exclude SFT from the RTT comparison since it is not a valid EN->DE system.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2, "Avg."] The average metric combines raw BLEU, COMETKiwi, XCOMET, and TA scores, which have different scales and distributions; this makes the composite average difficult to interpret. Please report normalized scores or justify the raw average, and temper the claim that the average rises from 59.84 to 62.14.
  3. [§3.1 and §2.2] There are several typos: "Experimetal Setups" in §3.1, "Algorithom" in §2.2, and "DeeeSeek-R1" in §4.1; please proofread.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (13)] The KL divergence approximation is written as an equality with the exact KL, but it is an unbiased estimator of the forward KL used in GRPO; please clarify this to avoid notation confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the word-alignment rewards are training signals derived from SimAlign on the training data, while the reported terminology accuracy is measured on the externally annotated RTT test set.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The three alignment rewards (Raaw, Raao, Rtaw in Eqs. 8-10) are computed from SimAlign alignments between source, reference, and predicted translations, restricted to source nouns by NER, and combined with format and rounded COMET-22 rewards in Eq. 11. No reward component is fitted to the RTT test set or to the terminology-accuracy metric used for evaluation. The RTT TA score is an external measurement, computed from human term annotations as the paper states: "we also assess terminology accuracy (TA), indicating how many of the source terms have a corresponding target term in the translation." Although the COMET-22 training reward is from the same metric family as COMETKiwi-23-XL and XCOMET-XL used in evaluation, those are different models, the reward is rounded and reference-based, and the headline terminology result is driven by the alignment rewards rather than by the COMET family. The only overlapping-author citation, Song et al. (2025), appears in related work and is not load-bearing for the method or conclusions. Concerns about single-run results, missing significance tests, and unvalidated SimAlign alignment quality are correctness and robustness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on the quality of word alignment and noun extraction to define the reward, on the validity of COMET as a semantic reward, and on the quality of reference translations in the training data. The GRPO objective is standard background. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 1.0
    Weight for the answer-align-word reward in the overall reward (Section 2.1, Eq. 11). Hand-set with no sensitivity analysis.
  • beta = 0.1
    Weight for the answer-align-order reward in the overall reward (Section 2.1, Eq. 11). Hand-set with no sensitivity analysis.
  • gamma = 0.1
    Weight for the think-align-word reward in the overall reward (Section 2.1, Eq. 11). Hand-set with no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SimAlign word alignment is accurate for source-reference and source-prediction token pairs across ZH-EN and EN-DE.
    Section 2.1 computes A_ref and A_pre from SimAlign; noisy alignments would reward incorrect token pairs. No alignment accuracy validation is reported.
  • domain assumption Noun-only NER filtering identifies the key terms that require accurate translation.
    Section 2.1: 'retaining nouns as key elements requiring alignment'. Non-noun terminology and multiword terms not captured as nouns are excluded, and no validation against term gold labels is provided.
  • domain assumption COMET-22 is a valid semantic reward for translation quality.
    Section 2.1 adopts COMET-22 as a reward based on prior work; its reliability for all language pairs and domains is not assessed here.
  • standard math GRPO optimizes the policy as described in Shao et al. 2024.
    Section 2.2 uses the standard GRPO objective; this background is accepted from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Reference translations in the training and test data are high enough quality to serve as reward and evaluation targets.
    The rewards compare predicted alignments against reference-derived alignments. The paper itself notes in Section 3.2.2 that 'not all reference translations are of higher quality than the model's origin outputs', acknowledging the risk.
  • domain assumption Training and evaluation sets are disjoint.
    Training data is described as WMT17-20 plus Flores-200 and NTREX, while evaluation uses WMT23/24 and RTT; if the sets overlapped, evaluation would be inflated. No explicit overlap check is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TAT-R1: Terminology-Aware Translation with Reinforcement Learning and Word Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75KFZ6WY

@misc{pith2026250521172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TAT-R1: Terminology-Aware Translation with Reinforcement Learning and Word Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75KFZ6WY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21172}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, deep reasoning large language models(LLMs) like DeepSeek-R1 have made significant progress in tasks such as mathematics and coding. Inspired by this, several studies have employed reinforcement learning(RL) to enhance models' deep reasoning capabilities and improve machine translation(MT) quality. However, the terminology translation, an essential task in MT, remains unexplored in deep reasoning LLMs. In this paper, we propose \textbf{TAT-R1}, a terminology-aware translation model trained with reinforcement learning and word alignment. Specifically, we first extract the keyword translation pairs using a word alignment model. Then we carefully design three types of rule-based alignment rewards with the extracted alignment relationships. With those alignment rewards, the RL-trained translation model can learn to focus on the accurate translation of key information, including terminology in the source text. Experimental results show the effectiveness of TAT-R1. Our model significantly improves terminology translation accuracy compared to the baseline models while maintaining comparable performance on general translation tasks. In addition, we conduct detailed ablation studies of the DeepSeek-R1-like training paradigm for machine translation and reveal several key findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21172 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of TAT-R1 training with RL and word alignment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Compare the performance between SFT and RL. Compare between SFT and RL. To demonstrate the effectiveness of RL, we fine-tune the model using the same training data with SFT. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative examples illustrate the effect of different rewards on EN to ZH translation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compare the average performance between different word alignment rewards. R1 model improved across all metrics, demonstrat￾ing strong performance on the out-of-distribution (OOD) En->De task. This phenomenon indicates that, in translation tasks, RL-trained models ex￾hi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. NeoAMT: Neologism-Aware Agentic Machine Translation with Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CL 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    NeoAMT trains an RL agent with a Wiktionary toolkit, novel reward, and adaptive rollouts to translate sentences containing neologisms in 16 languages and 75 directions.

  2. Hunyuan-MT Technical Report

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Hunyuan-MT and Chimera, a 7B open-source translation model and its multi-candidate fusion variant, claim state-of-the-art multilingual translation including Mandarin to minority languages, with open weights.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nikolay Bogoychev and Pinzhen Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.WMT-1.80 Terminology-aware translation with constrained decoding and large language model prompting . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation, WMT 2023, Singapore, December 6-7, 2023 , pages 890--896. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.80 2023

  2. [2]

    Andong Chen, Yuchen Song, Wenxin Zhu, Kehai Chen, Muyun Yang, Tiejun Zhao, and Min Zhang. 2025 a . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.11544 Evaluating o1-like llms: Unlocking reasoning for translation through comprehensive analysis . CoRR, abs/2502.11544

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11544 2025

  3. [3]

    Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jinhao Liu, Dengyun Peng, Jiannan Guan, Peng Wang, Mengkang Hu, Yuhang Zhou, Te Gao, and Wanxiang Che. 2025 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.09567 Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models . CoRR, abs/2503.09567

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09567 2025

  4. [4]

    Costa - juss \` a , James Cross, Onur C elebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Y

    Marta R. Costa - juss \` a , James Cross, Onur C elebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Y. Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Lo \" c Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, and 19 others. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/AR...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04672 2022

  5. [5]

    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, and 81 others. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.12948 Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinfor...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 2025

  6. [6]

    DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, and 181 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437 Deepseek-v3 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2412.19437

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Christian Federmann, Tom Kocmi, and Ying Xin. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.sumeval-1.4 NTREX -128 -- news test references for MT evaluation of 128 languages . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation, pages 21--24, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.sumeval-1.4 2022

  8. [8]

    Zhaopeng Feng, Shaosheng Cao, Jiahan Ren, Jiayuan Su, Ruizhe Chen, Yan Zhang, Zhe Xu, Yao Hu, Jian Wu, and Zuozhu Liu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10160 Mt-r1-zero: Advancing llm-based machine translation via r1-zero-like reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2504.10160

    arXiv 2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Nuno Miguel Guerreiro, Ricardo Rei, Daan van Stigt, Lu \' sa Coheur, Pierre Colombo, and Andr \' e F. T. Martins. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/TACL\_A\_00683 xcomet : Transparent machine translation evaluation through fine-grained error detection . Trans. Assoc. Comput. Lingu...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Minggui He, Yilun Liu, Shimin Tao, Yuanchang Luo, Hongyong Zeng, Chang Su, Li Zhang, Hongxia Ma, Daimeng Wei, Weibin Meng, Hao Yang, Boxing Chen, and Osamu Yoshie. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.19735 R1-T1: fully incentivizing translation capability in llms via rea...

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jingcheng Hu, Yinmin Zhang, Qi Han, Daxin Jiang, and Heung-Yeung Shum Xiangyu Zhang. 2025. Open-reasoner-zero: An open source approach to scaling reinforcement learning on the base model. https://github.com/Open-Reasoner-Zero/Open-Reasoner-Zero

    2025

  4. [12]

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El - Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, Alex Iftimie, Alex Karpenko, Alex Tachard Passos, Alexander Neitz, Alexander Prokofiev, Alexander Wei, Allison Tam, Ally Bennett, Ananya...

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Juraj Juraska, Daniel Deutsch, Mara Finkelstein, and Markus Freitag. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.wmt-1.35 M etric X -24: The G oogle submission to the WMT 2024 metrics shared task . In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 492--504, Miami...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Sejoon Kim, Mingi Sung, Jeonghwan Lee, Hyunkuk Lim, and Jorge Gimenez Perez. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.wmt-1.51 Efficient terminology integration for llm-based translation in specialized domains . In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Machine Translation, WMT 202...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Tom Kocmi and Christian Federmann. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.eamt-1.19 Large language models are state-of-the-art evaluators of translation quality . In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, EAMT 2023, Tampere,...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Zhong - Zhi Li, Duzhen Zhang, Ming - Liang Zhang, Jiaxin Zhang, Zengyan Liu, Yuxuan Yao, Haotian Xu, Junhao Zheng, Pei - Jie Wang, Xiuyi Chen, Yingying Zhang, Fei Yin, Jiahua Dong, Zhijiang Guo, Le Song, and Cheng - Lin Liu. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.17419 From...

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sinuo Liu, Chenyang Lyu, Minghao Wu, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo, Kaifu Zhang, and Zifu Shang. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.10351 New trends for modern machine translation with large reasoning models . CoRR, abs/2503.10351

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Tang, Manan Roongta, Colin Cai, Jeffrey Luo, Tianjun Zhang, Li Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica

    Michael Luo, Sijun Tan, Justin Wong, Xiaoxiang Shi, William Y. Tang, Manan Roongta, Colin Cai, Jeffrey Luo, Tianjun Zhang, Li Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica. 2025. Deepscaler: Surpassing o1-preview with a 1.5b model by scaling rl. https://github.com/agentica-project...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kelleher, Rejwanul Haque, and Andy Way

    Yasmin Moslem, Gianfranco Romani, Mahdi Molaei, John D. Kelleher, Rejwanul Haque, and Andy Way. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.WMT-1.82 Domain terminology integration into machine translation: Leveraging large language models . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference o...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Jiyoon Myung, Jihyeon Park, Jungki Son, Kyungro Lee, and Joohyung Han. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.wmt-1.129 Efficient technical term translation: A knowledge distillation approach for parenthetical terminology translation . In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei - Jing Zhu. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073135 Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation . In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, ...

    2002

  14. [22]

    Matt Post. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/W18-6319 A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores . In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018 , pages 186--191. Association for Comp...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Yiwei Qin, Xuefeng Li, Haoyang Zou, Yixiu Liu, Shijie Xia, Zhen Huang, Yixin Ye, Weizhe Yuan, Hector Liu, Yuanzhi Li, and Pengfei Liu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.18982 O1 replication journey: A strategic progress report - part 1 . CoRR, abs/2410.18982

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Farinha, and Alon Lavie

    Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2020.EMNLP-MAIN.213 COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, Novemb...

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Treviso, Nuno Miguel Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C

    Ricardo Rei, Marcos V. Treviso, Nuno Miguel Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C. Farinha, Christine Maroti, Jos \' e G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte M. Alves, Lu \' sa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and Andr \' e F. T. Martins. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.wmt-1.60 Cometki...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Masoud Jalili Sabet, Philipp Dufter, Fran c ois Yvon, and Hinrich Sch \" u tze. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2020.FINDINGS-EMNLP.147 Simalign: High quality word alignments without parallel training data using static and contextualized embeddings . In Findings of the Assoc...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347 Proximal policy optimization algorithms . Preprint, arXiv:1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.704 BLEURT : Learning robust metrics for text generation . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881--7892, Online. Ass...

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300 Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models . Preprint, arXiv:2402.03300

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mingyang Song, Mao Zheng, Zheng Li, Wenjie Yang, Xuan Luo, Yue Pan, and Feng Zhang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17287 Fastcurl: Curriculum reinforcement learning with progressive context extension for efficient training r1-like reasoning models . Preprint, arXiv:2503.17287

    2025

  23. [31]

    Jiaan Wang, Fandong Meng, Yunlong Liang, and Jie Zhou. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2412.17498 Drt-o1: Optimized deep reasoning translation via long chain-of-thought . CoRR, abs/2412.17498

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jiaan Wang, Fandong Meng, and Jie Zhou. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10187 Deep reasoning translation via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2504.10187

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, and 22 others. 2024. https://doi.org/10.485...

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Wei Liu, Keqing He, Qian Liu, Zejun Ma, and Junxian He. 2025. 7b model and 8k examples: Emerging reasoning with reinforcement learning is both effective and efficient. https://hkust-nlp.notion.site/simplerl-reason. Notion Blog

    2025

  27. [35]

    Huaao Zhang, Qiang Wang, Bo Qin, Zelin Shi, Haibo Wang, and Ming Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.332 Understanding and improving the robustness of terminology constraints in neural machine translation . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Ass...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Yuxiang Zhang, Shangxi Wu, Yuqi Yang, Jiangming Shu, Jinlin Xiao, Chao Kong, and Jitao Sang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2412.00154 o1-coder: an o1 replication for coding . CoRR, abs/2412.00154

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yu Zhao, Huifeng Yin, Bo Zeng, Hao Wang, Tianqi Shi, Chenyang Lyu, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo, and Kaifu Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2411.14405 Marco-o1: Towards open reasoning models for open-ended solutions . CoRR, abs/2411.14405

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jiawei Zheng, Hanghai Hong, Feiyan Liu, Xiaoli Wang, Jingsong Su, Yonggui Liang, and Shikai Wu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15061 Fine-tuning large language models for domain-specific machine translation . Preprint, arXiv:2402.15061

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    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...

  32. [40]

    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 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.