Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Information Loss in LLMs' Multilingual Translation: The Role of Training Data, Language Proximity, and Language Family

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that training-data volume and typological distance from English jointly determine information loss in LLM translation, with data able to compensate for distance.

desk verdict A valuable descriptive dataset and a plausible story, but the central interaction claim is not supported by the statistics as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23340 v1 pith:5V4YVSBA submitted 2025-06-29 cs.CL

Yumeng Lin , Xufeng Duan , David Haslett , Yige Chen , Zhenguang G. Cai This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords round-triptranslationmultilingualtrainingdatalanguagedistancefamilyBLEUBERTsimilaritylargemodels
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 tries to establish that information loss in large language model translation is governed by an interaction between how much training data a language has and how linguistically distant that language is from English. Using round-trip translations through English on 1,000 sentences across 88 languages with GPT-4 and 26 languages with Llama 2, the authors find that low-resource languages closer to English consistently retain more information, while abundant training data largely cancels the disadvantage of structural distance. They also find that orthographic, phylogenetic, syntactic, and geographic distances are the strongest predictors of translation quality, and that language family has an influence beyond what training data alone explains. If right, the work separates data volume from typological structure in explaining why some languages are poorly served, and points to linguistically informed data and transfer choices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interaction term between training-data size (log-scaled and standardized) and average language distance in a linear mixed-effects model, with sentence as random effect. The paper operationalizes information loss through round-trip translation: English source sentences are translated into a target language and back, and quality is scored by BLEU and Sentence-BERT similarity against the original. Language distance is computed from URIEL's phylogenetic, geographic, syntactic, phonological, featural, and inventory distances plus an orthographic Levenshtein distance over Swadesh vocabulary, averaged into one predictor; random-forest importance rankings then decompose which distance type carries the predictive weight.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison that holds the model and evaluation constant and varies only the volume of target-language training data: if a distant low-resource language given augmented data does not show steeper quality gains than a close language given the same augmentation, the claimed compensatory interaction would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a consistent statistical interaction: for both GPT-4 and Llama 2, the negative effect of linguistic distance from English on round-trip translation quality shrinks as training-data volume grows. In low-resource conditions, languages structurally close to English clearly outperform distant ones; in high-resource conditions, distant languages can match or exceed close ones. The interaction is present for both BLEU and BERT similarity under linear mixed-effects models, and random-forest analyses single out orthographic, phylogenetic, syntactic, and geographic distances as the most informative predictors. A separate residual analysis shows language family exerts an independent effect on translation quality after training data is controlled, with Indo-European Romance and Germanic families generally ahead, and GPT-4's lower BERT similarity on those close families interpreted as flexible paraphrase rather than information loss.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes GPT-3's public training-data word counts are a fair stand-in for GPT-4's actual per-language training distribution, because GPT-4's own training data is not public.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When training data for a low-resource language is scarce, pivoting through a structurally close high-resource language should preserve more information than a direct English-to-target round trip.
  • Adding training data for a linguistically distant language should produce larger quality gains than adding the same volume to an already close language, flattening the distance gradient.
  • Orthographic and phylogenetic distances should be treated as first-order factors when choosing transfer languages or predicting translation degradation, ahead of phonological and featural measures.
  • Language family membership should enter quality models as its own term; residual quality differences across families will persist after data volume is accounted for.
  • Evaluations that rely on a single surface-similarity metric can misclassify flexible paraphrasing as information loss, so multilingual translation should be scored with both surface and semantic measures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical allocation strategy the authors leave implicit: if the interaction is causal, marginal training data is best spent on languages that are both low-resource and typologically distant from English, since that is where the largest gap opens.
  • The strong orthographic-distance effect suggests subword tokenization is a key mechanism; a testable extension is that a tokenizer preserving more morpheme-level units would disproportionately improve translation for non-Latin-script and morphologically rich languages.
  • The GPT-4 result of lower BERT similarity on close families hints at emergent typologically sensitive decoding; one could probe this by comparing generation entropy or paraphrase rates across families, though the paper does not do that.
  • The reliance on GPT-3 data as a proxy means the true interaction for GPT-4 could be mis-estimated in either direction; if GPT-4's actual training distribution differs, data-allocation recommendations would need rescaling.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper investigates factors affecting information loss in multilingual LLM translation by performing round-trip translations (English to target language and back) with GPT-4 and Llama 2 across 88 and 26 languages, respectively. Translation quality is measured with BLEU and BERT similarity, and is modeled as a function of training data size (GPT-3 word counts for GPT-4; Llama 2's documented counts), a composite of seven language distance metrics from URIEL, and language family. The main claims are: (1) training data and language distance interact, such that languages closer to English fare better under low-resource conditions while abundant data mitigates the disadvantage of linguistic divergence; (2) orthographic, phylogenetic, geographical, and syntactic distances are the most important predictors; and (3) language family has an independent influence on translation quality.

Significance. If the results hold up, the study would provide a valuable large-scale empirical characterization of how data volume and linguistic typology jointly shape LLM translation quality, with implications for low-resource translation and model training. The paper's strengths include the breadth of languages tested, the use of multiple externally sourced linguistic distance measures, and a round-trip design that avoids dependence on parallel corpora. However, the central statistical claim rests on analyses that treat sentence-level observations as independent units for language-level predictors, which invalidates the reported significance tests and undermines the abstract's assertion of a 'robust interaction'. The paper's descriptive patterns and random forest results remain informative, but the inferential claims need to be re-established.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.6, 3.3] The central claim of a robust interaction between training data and language distance is based on linear mixed-effects models in Section 2.6 in which the fixed effects 'training data' and 'average language distance' are language-level constants. The random-effect structure is described only as 'translation sentences', and the reported degrees of freedom (e.g., df = 121,905 for the Llama 2 BLEU interaction; df = 337,005 for the GPT-4 BERT similarity interaction) indicate that each sentence-level observation is treated as independent. With only 26 languages for Llama 2 and 88 for GPT-4, the effective number of independent observations for these predictors is the number of languages, not the number of translated sentences. Consequently, the standard errors are substantially understated and the p-values overstate significance. This unit-of-analysis error affects the main effects and interactions in Section 2.6 and also the language-family residual analyses in Section 3.3, because family membership varies only by language. The authors should re-analyze at the language level, for example by aggregating over sentences within a language and using language as the unit of analysis, or by fitting models with cluster-robust standard errors where the cluster is language. The manuscript should then report whether the interaction and family effects remain significant under the re-analysis.
  2. [2.1, 2.6] For GPT-4, the training data predictor uses GPT-3's public word-count statistics because GPT-4's training data are not disclosed. The paper acknowledges this proxy choice, but the Discussion does not assess how measurement error in this proxy could affect the estimated main effect and interaction for training data in the GPT-4 analyses. If GPT-4's language distribution differs substantially from GPT-3's, the estimated interaction term could be biased in either direction. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis (for instance, by testing plausible alternative assumed distributions) or explicitly restrict the GPT-4 conclusions to 'training data as proxied by GPT-3' and discuss how a mismatch could alter the interaction claim. Given that the interaction is a central result, this proxy limitation deserves more than a passing acknowledgment.
  3. [2.5, 2.6] The regression model uses an unweighted arithmetic mean of seven language distance metrics as the single 'average language distance' predictor, but no justification is given for this composite. The random forest analyses in Section 2.6 show that the metrics differ greatly in predictive importance (e.g., orthographic and phylogenetic distance are much more important than phonological or inventory distance), which suggests that an equally weighted average may be a poor summary. The authors should either justify the equal weighting on theoretical grounds, or analyze the distance metrics separately in the mixed-effects models, or include them jointly as distinct fixed effects. Without such a change, it is unclear whether the reported interaction reflects the effect of a linguistically meaningful dimension or an artifact of the particular composite chosen.
minor comments (7)
  1. [2.1] Section 2.1 contains a duplicated phrase: 'For Llama 2, For Llama 2'.
  2. [Throughout] The term 'Bert' should be written as 'BERT' (e.g., 'BERT similarity') in the text, figures, and table headers.
  3. [2.5] The text says 'the calculation of the BLUE score'; this should be 'BLEU score'.
  4. [1] The Introduction refers to 'Jiao et al. (2013)' when discussing ChatGPT's translation performance, but the reference list entry and the surrounding literature indicate the correct year is 2023.
  5. [2.6] The description of the 'forward algorithm' for determining the maximal random effect structure is vague; the authors should report the resulting random-effect structure (e.g., random intercepts for sentences, any random slopes) explicitly.
  6. [2.6, Figure 9] The random forest variable importance plot is presented without uncertainty intervals; permutation-based confidence intervals or multiple runs would help assess the stability of the importance rankings.
  7. [Overall] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement. Given the size of the dataset and the complexity of the analyses, releasing the sentence-level translations and analysis scripts would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: predictors are external to outcomes, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central interaction claim is a fitted regression result, not a derived identity. Training-data counts (GPT-3 public statistics for GPT-4, Llama 2 distributions), URIEL distances, and Swadesh orthographic distances are all defined independently of the BLEU and BERT-similarity outcomes, so no equation reduces a predictor to the target. The GPT-3 proxy for GPT-4 is an acknowledged limitation of data availability, not a circular step. The family analysis residualizes translation quality on training data and then tests family, a standard two-step procedure. Self-citations by current authors (Haslett & Cai, Duan et al., Zhou et al.) appear in the R-package description, tokenization discussion, and attention-head interpretation; none carries the central interaction or distance-metric importance conclusions. The pseudoreplication concern raised by the skeptic is a statistical-validity issue about sentence-level degrees of freedom, not a circularity issue, since no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several domain assumptions about proxy data, the validity of round-trip evaluation, and the representation of language distance. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Average language distance composite weighting = equal weights (simple mean of seven distances)
    Hand-chosen composite; alternative weightings could change the interaction estimates.
  • Language inclusion thresholds = 0.00005% for GPT-3; 0.05% for Llama 2
    Hand-chosen cutoffs determine which languages enter the analysis and thus define the 'low-resource' range; with different thresholds the interaction could differ.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-3's public training data language word counts approximate GPT-4's actual training data distribution.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 when selecting 88 languages for GPT-4 and using those word counts as the training data predictor. GPT-4's training data is proprietary and could differ.
  • domain assumption Round-trip translation through English is a valid measure of information loss in multilingual translation.
    The entire evaluation rests on this, per Section 2.4. It assumes back-translation from English preserves or reveals the information lost in the forward direction, and that English is a neutral pivot.
  • domain assumption URIEL distance metrics and the Swadesh-based orthographic distance accurately represent linguistic proximity for all selected languages.
    Used in Section 2.5. URIEL relies on language documentation that is incomplete for some low-resource languages, and Swadesh lists may not cover all 207 items for every language.
  • ad hoc to paper The seven distance metrics can be combined into a single unweighted 'average language distance' for the regression analysis.
    The composite is used as a fixed effect in the LMMs (Section 2.6) but the paper does not justify equal weighting or state how normalization was performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information Loss in LLMs' Multilingual Translation: The Role of Training Data, Language Proximity, and Language Family." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5V4YVSBA

@misc{pith2026250623340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information Loss in LLMs' Multilingual Translation: The Role of Training Data, Language Proximity, and Language Family},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5V4YVSBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23340}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models have achieved impressive progress in multilingual translation, yet they continue to face challenges with certain language pairs-particularly those with limited training data or significant linguistic divergence from English. This study systematically investigates how training data, language proximity, and language family affect information loss in multilingual translation. We evaluate two large language models, GPT-4 and Llama 2, by performing round-trip translations. Translation quality was assessed using BLEU scores and BERT similarity metrics. Our results reveal a robust interaction between training data size and language distance: while abundant training data can mitigate the effects of linguistic divergence, languages structurally closer to English consistently yield higher translation quality in low-resource conditions. Among various distance metrics, orthographic, phylogenetic, syntactic, and geographical distances emerge as strong predictors of translation performance. Language family also exerts an independent influence. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the linguistic constraints shaping multilingual translation in large language models, emphasizing that translation quality is shaped not only by data volume but also by structural and typological relationships between languages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23340 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. The relation between training data and BLEU score grouped by language distances (Llama2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. The relation between training data and BLEU score grouped by language distances (GPT-4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. The relation between training data and Bert similarity grouped by language distances (GPT-4) To further evaluate the relative importance of specific language distance metrics in predicting translation quality, we conducted random forest analyses ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Importance of specific language distance metrics in explaining translation quality of Llama2 and GPT-4 To examine the effect of language family on translation quality independent of training data, we conducted a mixed-effects model analysis using the residuals of a pri…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Yim, W

    Abacha, A. B., Yim, W. W., Fu, Y., Sun, Z., Yetisgen, M., Xia, F., & Lin, T. (2024). Medec: A benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19260

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    F., Winata, G

    Aji, A. F., Winata, G. I., Koto, F., Cahyawijaya, S., Romadhony, A., Mahendra, R., ... Ruder, S. (2022). One country, 700+ languages: NLP challenges for underrepresented languages and dialects in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 7226–7249)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., ... Fung, P. (2023). A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity (arXiv:2302.04023). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 2015

  5. [5]

    Bawden, R., & Yvon, F. (2023). Investigating the translation performance of a large multilingual language model: The case of BLOOM (arXiv:2303.01911). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01911

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O’Reilly Media

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Campbell, L., & Poser, W. J. (2008). Comparative linguistics of other language families and regions. In Language classification: History and method (pp. 87– 161). Cambridge University Press

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    K., & Trudgill, P

    Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805103

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805103 1998

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Diandaru, R., Susanto, L., Tang, Z., Purwarianti, A., & Wijaya, D. (2024). Could we have had better multilingual LLMs if English was not the central language? (arXiv:2402.13917). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.13917

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    He, J., Zhang, Z., Berg- Kirkpatrick, T., & Neubig, G. (2019). Cross -lingual syntactic transfer through unsupervised adaptation of invertible projections. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3211–3223)

    2019

  3. [11]

    L., Majid, A., & Van Hout, R

    Huisman, J. L., Majid, A., & Van Hout, R. (2019). The geographical configuration of a language area influences linguistic diversity. PLoS One, 14(6), e0217363

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ippolito, D., Kriz, R., Sedoc, J., Kustikova , M., & Callison -Burch, C. (2019). Comparison of diverse decoding methods from conditional language models. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3752–3762)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Jiao, W., Wang, W., Huang, J., Wang, X., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2023). Is ChatGPT a good translator? Yes with GPT-4 as the engine (arXiv:2301.08745). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08745

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A., Lundin, N

    Kumar, A. A., Lundin, N. B., & Jones, M. N. (2022). Mouse-mole-vole: The inconspicuous benefit of phonology during retrieval from semantic memory. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

    2022

  7. [15]

    B., & Christensen, R

    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software , 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    H., Chen, C

    Lin, Y. H., Chen, C. Y., Lee, J., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Xia, M., ... Neubig, G. (2019). Choosing transfer languages for cross -lingual learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3125–3135)

    2019

  9. [17]

    R., Lin, K., Kairis, K., Turner, C., & Levin, L

    Littell, P., Mortensen, D. R., Lin, K., Kairis, K., Turner, C., & Levin, L. (2017). URIEL and lang2vec: Representing languages as typological, geographical, and phylogenetic vectors. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computati...

    2017

  10. [18]

    T., & Bing, L

    Liu, C., Zhang, W., Zhao, Y., Luu, A. T., & Bing, L. (2024). Is translation all you need? A study on solving multilingual tasks with large language models (arXiv:2403.10258). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.10258

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language , 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Neubig, G., & Hu, J. (2018). Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 875–880)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W. J. (2002). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 311–318)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Poncelas, A., & Effendi, J. (2022). Benefiting from language similarity in the multilingual MT training: Case study of Indonesian and Malaysian. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Technologies for Machine Translation of Low-Resource Languages (pp. 84–92)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A langu...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Johnson, M

    Ruder, S., Constant, N., Botha, J., Siddhant, A., Firat, O., Fu, J., ... Johnson, M. (2021). XTREME- R: Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 10215– 10245)

    2021

  17. [25]

    R., Cross, J., Çelebi, O., Elbayad, M., Heafield, K.,

    Team, N., Costa-jussà, M. R., Cross, J., Çelebi, O., Elbayad, M., Heafield, K., ... Ai, M. (2022). No language left behind: Scaling human- centered machine translation. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04672

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Scialom, T

    Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., ... Scialom, T. (2023). LLaMA 2: Open foundation and fine -tuned chat models (arXiv:2307.09288). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wang, L., Lyu, C., Ji, T., Zhang, Z., Yu, D., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2023). Document -level machine translation with large language models (arXiv:2304.02210). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02210

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Xia, M., Kong, X., Anastasopoulos, A., & Neubig, G. (2019). Generalized data augmentation for low-resource translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5786–5796)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Yan, J., Yan, P., Chen, Y., Li, J., Zhu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). GPT -4 vs. human translators: A comprehensive evaluation of translation quality across languages, domains, and expertise levels (arXiv:2407.03658). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.03658

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zeng, H., Han, S., Chen, L., & Yu, K. (2024). Converging to a lingua franca: Evolution of linguistic regions and semantics alignment in multilingual large language models (arXiv:2410.11718). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11718

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhang, R., Yu, Q., Zang, M., Eickhoff, C., & Pavlick, E. (2024). The same but different: Structural similarities and differences in multilingual language modeling (arXiv:2410.09223). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09223

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhou, X., Chen, D., Cahyawijaya , S., Duan, X., & Cai, Z. G. (2024). Linguistic minimal pairs elicit linguistic similarity in large language models (arXiv:2409). arXiv

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zhu, W., Liu, H., Dong, Q., Xu, J., Huang, S., Kong, L., ... Li, L. (2024). Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis (arXiv:2304.04675). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.04675

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.