Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Domain-Specific Translation with Open-Source Large Language Models: Resource-Oriented Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An open-source 3.3B dedicated translation model outperforms 7-8B general-purpose LLMs on medical-domain translation in three of four language directions, and remains competitive after fine-tuning.

desk verdict Zero-shot benchmark is useful, but the fine-tuning comparison conflates architecture with adaptation budget and the ranking lacks any significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05862 v4 pith:CNT73IF2 submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CL

Aman Kassahun Wassie , Mahdi Molaei , Yasmin Moslem This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords machinetranslationlargelanguagemodelsdomain-specificmedicaldomainNLLB-200low-resourcelanguagesfine-tuningretrieval-augmented
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 tests whether general-purpose open-source large language models have made dedicated machine-translation systems unnecessary for specialized, domain-specific translation. Using medical-domain data in English-to-French, English-to-Portuguese, English-to-Swahili, and Swahili-to-English, it compares NLLB-200 3.3B, a task-oriented encoder-decoder MT model, with open decoder-only LLMs from 7B to 685B parameters. The paper claims that NLLB-200 3.3B beats the 7-8B LLMs in zero-shot translation in three of the four directions, and that after fine-tuning on a small or medium medical dataset it matches or exceeds fine-tuned Llama-3 8B. The conclusions matter for practitioners choosing between specialized MT models and general LLMs under data-privacy and compute constraints. The paper concludes that task-oriented MT models remain a core component for high-quality domain-specific translation, while very large LLMs are best used offline for data augmentation and distillation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is a controlled comparison protocol built around NLLB-200 3.3B, a 3.3B-parameter encoder-decoder Transformer trained for multilingual translation. Every model is evaluated in the same two inference modes: zero-shot sentence translation, and one-shot translation where the prompt is augmented with a fuzzy match, i.e. the most semantically similar translation pair retrieved from a context dataset by embedding similarity. A subset of models, including Mistral 7B, Llama-3 8B, Gemma 7B, and Mixtral 8x7B, is then fine-tuned on small (10,000 segments) and medium (100,000 segments) medical datasets, with LLMs fine-tuned via parameter-efficient low-rank adaptation and NLLB fine-tuned fully; NLLB is also fine-tuned with fuzzy-match concatenation and teacher-forced target prefixes. Translation quality is measured with BLEU, chrF++, and COMET, with AfriCOMET-MTL substituted for Swahili.

What would settle it

Run the same zero-shot and fine-tuned NLLB-200 3.3B against Llama-3 8B comparisons with multiple seeds or bootstrap resampling of the test sets, focusing on the sub-one-BLEU gaps such as EN-PT zero-shot NLLB 39.32 vs Llama-3.1 8B 38.77; if the confidence intervals overlap or the ordering flips, the three-of-four claim fails. A second check would use a fresh, never-published medical test set to rule out the data contamination the paper itself flags.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the authors would state it, is that scale and generality are not enough for specialized translation: a 3.3B-parameter encoder-decoder model built for translation, NLLB-200 3.3B, outperforms open decoder-only LLMs in the 7-8B parameter range for zero-shot medical translation in three of the four language pairs tested, and after fine-tuning on small-to-medium medical datasets it achieves results comparable to or better than fine-tuned LLMs such as Llama-3 8B. Larger LLMs such as Llama-3 70B, Llama-3.1 405B, and DeepSeek-V3 685B do reach higher baseline scores, especially with one-shot retrieval-augmented prompting, but at deployment costs the paper argues are prohibitive for most real-time production use. The discovery therefore points in two directions at once: dedicated MT models still earn their place in domain-specific workflows, and the quality of very large LLMs makes them attractive as teachers for distilling domain-specific medium-sized models.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central ranking assumes that single-run differences in BLEU, chrF++, and COMET/AfriCOMET scores are meaningful, even though no statistical significance tests or repeated runs are reported and some decisive gaps are under one BLEU point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations with a small or medium domain-specific parallel dataset can get competitive or better quality by fine-tuning NLLB-200 3.3B than by fine-tuning an 8B-class open LLM, at a fraction of the parameter count.
  • For zero-shot medical translation, 7-8B open LLMs are not yet a drop-in replacement for dedicated MT models, particularly for medium- and low-resource directions involving Swahili.
  • One-shot prompting with a fuzzy match consistently improves decoder-only LLMs over zero-shot, so retrieval-augmented prompting is a low-cost lever when fine-tuning is not available.
  • Very large open LLMs deliver the best baseline quality, but their hardware and latency requirements make them more realistic for offline data augmentation and knowledge distillation than for real-time production translation.
  • NLLB-200 3.3B's fine-tuned sentence-level variant is enough for Portuguese and Swahili; fuzzy-match concatenation gives no consistent extra gain, so simpler fine-tuning can suffice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ranking survives significance testing, the cost-per-quality ratio favors training or fine-tuning task-oriented models of a few billion parameters rather than relying on 8B general LLMs for domain-specific translation; this is an inference about deployment economics the paper gestures at but does not quantify.
  • The sub-one-BLEU gaps in some decisive comparisons (e.g. EN-PT zero-shot NLLB 39.32 vs Llama-3.1 8B 38.77) could reverse under bootstrap or repeated runs, so the three-of-four claim should be read as provisional until variance is reported.
  • The paper's own data-contamination warning suggests a direct falsification route: build a fresh, unpublished medical test set and rerun the same comparisons; if 8B LLMs then match or beat NLLB, contamination rather than architecture may explain the gap.
  • Fine-tuned NLLB-200 3.3B outperforming much larger LLMs on EN-SW hints that, in low-resource directions, task specialization plus moderate scale may beat generalist scale; this suggests testing distillation from 405B-class teachers into medium encoder-decoder models as a concrete next step.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an empirical comparison of open-source decoder-only LLMs against the encoder-decoder model NLLB-200 3.3B for medical-domain translation in four directions (EN-FR, EN-PT, EN-SW, SW-EN), across zero-shot, retrieval-augmented one-shot, and fine-tuned settings. The authors report that NLLB-200 3.3B outperforms 7-8B LLMs in most zero-shot conditions, that fine-tuned NLLB-200 generally matches or beats fine-tuned 7-8B LLMs, and that very large LLMs (Llama-3.1 405B, DeepSeek-V3 685B) achieve top scores at much higher computational cost. Public code and data-preparation scripts are provided, and the paper includes useful engineering details on QLoRA, packing, quantization, and inference engines.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful resource-oriented baseline for practitioners deciding between general-purpose LLMs and task-oriented MT models for domain-specific translation, particularly for medium- and low-resource languages. The study's breadth is a genuine strength: four language directions, several model families, three automatic metrics, and a public repository for both training and inference. However, the ranking conclusions currently rest on point estimates without uncertainty quantification, and the fine-tuning comparison appears to compare full-weight NLLB-200 tuning against QLoRA adaptation of decoder-only LLMs. The core question is important and the evidence is substantial, but the headline claims are not yet fully established as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Tables 1–4] The central ranking of models is not backed by significance tests, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds. Several decisive gaps are small, e.g. Table 2 shows zero-shot EN-PT BLEU of 39.32 for NLLB-200 3.3B versus 38.77 for Llama-3.1 8B, and Table 1 shows zero-shot EN-FR COMET of 59.32 for NLLB-200 versus 59.36 for Llama-3 8B. With the Swahili medical test set containing only 1,000 segments (§2.2), the reported ordering cannot be considered established. I recommend reporting bootstrap confidence intervals for BLEU, chrF++, and COMET, and, where feasible, results over multiple fine-tuning seeds.
  2. [§3 and Appendix B.2.2] The fine-tuning comparison appears to compare a full-weight fine-tuned NLLB-200 3.3B against QLoRA-adapted 7-8B decoder-only LLMs. Section 3 introduces QLoRA specifically for 'autoregressive decoder-only models' and describes NLLB-200 fine-tuning separately without any parameter-efficient method; Appendix B.2.2 reports a learning-rate search for NLLB without mentioning QLoRA. Since QLoRA updates only a small fraction of weights, the claim that fine-tuned NLLB-200 outperforms fine-tuned Llama-3/Mistral (Section 4.1.2 and the Abstract) conflates architecture with adaptation budget. The authors should either equalize the adaptation setup (e.g. LoRA/QLoRA for NLLB-200, or full fine-tuning for the LLMs), or explicitly report and justify the trainable-parameter counts and training budgets for both sides. Section 7 should acknowledge this asymmetry, which is at least as relevant as the data-contamination concern discussed there.
  3. [Abstract and §4.1] The headline 'three out of four language directions' is metric-dependent and underspecified. On zero-shot BLEU, NLLB-200 3.3B wins all four directions among the 7-8B models, whereas on COMET, Llama-3 8B edges NLLB-200 in EN-FR (59.36 vs. 59.32, Table 1). The paper reports three metrics with no stated aggregation rule; the abstract and Section 4 should therefore state the metric or predefined aggregation used for the 'three out of four' claim, and should not imply a uniform conclusion across all metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 3] The text in Section 4.2 says NLLB-200 3.3B is the top-performing model for SW-EN, but Table 3 shows Llama-3.1 405B (one-shot) with higher BLEU and chrF++ in both the medical and generic domains; the text should qualify the claim as applying to the 8B-class models or explicitly exclude the massive-model class.
  2. [§4.1.1 and Table 1] The claim that Gemma 7B has the worst zero-shot performance is not supported by Table 1, where BioMistral has lower zero-shot BLEU (24.13 vs. 26.21) and the two models trade places on chrF++; the statement should be tied to a specific metric or otherwise revised.
  3. [Appendix Table 8] The Swahili row in Table 8 is difficult to parse ('9,000+ 1,000n/a' and '10,415+ 514'); please format the training-domain mixture and context counts as separate numeric columns.
  4. [Appendix B.3] The packing=True choice can change scores substantially (e.g., EN-SW medical zero-shot BLEU drops from 18.04 to 13.38 in Table 12), so the main text should state that packing was used for all reported fine-tuned results; otherwise readers may not realize the setup differs from the unpacked baseline.
  5. [Tables 1 and 3] Table captions refer to 'NLLB-200 3.3' while the text and other tables use 'NLLB-200 3.3B'; please make the model name consistent throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline rankings are direct empirical measurements on held-out test sets; self-citations are methodological or background and do not constrain the conclusions.

full rationale

The claimed results are benchmark measurements, not derived quantities. The comparisons of NLLB-200 3.3B against 7-8B decoder-only LLMs are read directly from held-out test sets (10,000 segments for French and Portuguese; 1,000 for Swahili medical) using external metric implementations (sacreBLEU, COMET, AfriCOMET). There is no fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction, no quantity defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no uniqueness theorem invoked to force a choice. The self-citations to Moslem et al. (2023a) supply the adaptive prompt recipe and background on NLLB quality; the paper's ordering does not depend on accepting those prior conclusions, because the ordering is produced by the new test-set evaluations reported in Tables 1-4. The main validity concern is not circularity: decoder-only LLMs were adapted with QLoRA for one epoch, while NLLB-200 3.3B fine-tuning is described separately with no parameter-efficient method mentioned, and several decisive gaps are under 1 BLEU point with no significance tests or multiple seeds. Section 7 flags data contamination but not this training-budget asymmetry. These issues affect how strongly the comparison supports the 'diminishing returns' conclusion; they do not make the derivation circular. Therefore no circular step is identified.

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

The paper is an empirical benchmark, so it introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions rely on three domain assumptions: metric validity, test-set representativeness, and the usefulness of the semantic retrieval pipeline.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Automatic metrics (BLEU, chrF++, COMET/AfriCOMET) reflect translation quality in the medical domain.
    The paper draws ordering conclusions from these metrics only, with no human evaluation or significance testing (Sections 4.1, 4.2).
  • domain assumption The sampled test sets are representative and not contaminated by model training data.
    Acknowledged in Limitations; contamination cannot be ruled out for open LLMs.
  • domain assumption Fuzzy-match retrieval via MiniLM embeddings provides useful in-context examples.
    Section 3; retrieval quality is not independently validated beyond translation scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain-Specific Translation with Open-Source Large Language Models: Resource-Oriented Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNT73IF2

@misc{pith2026241205862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain-Specific Translation with Open-Source Large Language Models: Resource-Oriented Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNT73IF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05862}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we compare the domain-specific translation performance of open-source autoregressive decoder-only large language models (LLMs) with task-oriented machine translation (MT) models. Our experiments focus on the medical domain and cover four language directions with varied resource availability: English-to-French, English-to-Portuguese, English-to-Swahili, and Swahili-to-English. Despite recent advancements, LLMs demonstrate a significant quality gap in specialized translation compared to multilingual encoder-decoder MT models such as NLLB-200. Our results indicate that NLLB-200 3.3B outperforms all evaluated LLMs in the 7-8B parameter range across three out of the four language directions. While fine-tuning improves the performance of LLMs such as Mistral and Llama, these models still underperform compared to fine-tuned NLLB-200 3.3B models. Our findings highlight the ongoing need for specialized MT models to achieve high-quality domain-specific translation, especially in medium-resource and low-resource settings. Moreover, the superior performance of larger LLMs over their 8B variants suggests potential value in pre-training domain-specific medium-sized language models, employing targeted data selection and knowledge distillation approaches to enhance both quality and efficiency in specialized translation tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.564 In-context Examples Selection for Machine Translation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pages 8857--8873, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Duarte Alves, Nuno Guerreiro, João Alves, José Pombal, Ricardo Rei, José de Souza, Pierre Colombo, and Andre Martins. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.744 Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 11127-...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Antonios Anastasopoulos, Alessandro Cattelan, Zi-Yi Dou, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Dmitriy Genzel, Franscisco Guzmán, Junjie Hu, Macduff Hughes, Philipp Koehn, Rosie Lazar, Will Lewis, Graham Neubig, Mengmeng Niu, Alp Öktem, Eric Paquin, Grace Tang, and Sylwia Tur. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.nlpcovid19-2.5 TICO -19: the Translation ...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    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, and 12 others. 2020. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bram Bulte and Arda Tezcan. 2019. https://aclanthology.org/P19-1175 Neural Fuzzy Repair: Integrating Fuzzy Matches into Neural Machine Translation . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1800--1809, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2019

  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. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437 DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report . arXiv [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14314 QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs . arXiv [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Zhang, and 516 others. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The Llama 3 herd of mo...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1045 Understanding Back-Translation at Scale . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 489--500, Brussels, Belgium. Associati...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Marjan Ghazvininejad, Hila Gonen, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07856 Dictionary-based Phrase-level Prompting of Large Language Models for Machine Translation . arXiv [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas W...

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2921572 Billion-Scale Similarity Search with GPUs . IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535--547

    2019

  5. [13]

    Juraj Juraska, Daniel Deutsch, Mara Finkelstein, and Markus Freitag. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.wmt-1.35.pdf MetricX-24: The Google submission to the WMT 2024 metrics shared task . In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Machine Translation , pages 492--504, Strouds...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3600006.3613165 Efficient memory management for large language model serving with PagedAttention . In Proceedings of...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Yanis Labrak, Adrien Bazoge, Emmanuel Morin, Pierre-Antoine Gourraud, Mickael Rouvier, and Richard Dufour. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.348.pdf BioMistral: A collection of open-source pretrained large language models for medical domains . In Findings of the...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilić, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, Jonathan Tow, Alexander M Rush, Stella Biderman, Albert Webson, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Thomas Wang, Benoît Sa...

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ji Lin, Jiaming Tang, Haotian Tang, Shang Yang, Wei-Ming Chen, Wei-Chen Wang, Guangxuan Xiao, Xingyu Dang, Chuang Gan, and Song Han. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00978 AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for LLM compression and acceleration . arXiv [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, Léonard Hussenot, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Adam Roberts, Aditya Barua, Alex Botev, Alex Castro-Ros,...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yasmin Moslem, Rejwanul Haque, John Kelleher, and Andy Way. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.amta-research.2 Domain-Specific Text Generation for Machine Translation . In Proceedings of the 15th biennial conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yasmin Moslem, Rejwanul Haque, John D Kelleher, and Andy Way. 2023 a . https://aclanthology.org/2023.eamt-1.22 Adaptive Machine Translation with Large Language Models . In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation , pages 227...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Yasmin Moslem, Rejwanul Haque, and Andy Way. 2023 b . http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12740 Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Adaptive Machine Translation . arXiv [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yasmin Moslem, Gianfranco Romani, Mahdi Molaei, John D Kelleher, Rejwanul Haque, and Andy Way. 2023 c . https://aclanthology.org/2023.wmt-1.82 Domain Terminology Integration into Machine Translation: Leveraging Large Language Models . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. https://aclanthology.org/P02-1040 B leu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation . In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 311--318, P...

    2002

  16. [24]

    Maja Popović. 2017. https://aclanthology.org/W17-4770 chr F ++: words helping character n-grams . In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation , pages 612--618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2017

  17. [25]

    Matt Post. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/W18-6319 A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores . In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers , pages 186--191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2018

  18. [26]

    Qwen , 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, and 24 others. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10683 Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer . Journal of Machine Learning Re...

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/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) , pages 2685--2702, On...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Christine Maroti, José G C de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte Alves, Luísa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and André F T Martins. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.wmt-1.60.pdf CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Su...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. https://aclanthology.org/D19-1410 Sentence- BERT : Sentence Embeddings using S iamese BERT -Networks . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Nathaniel Robinson, Perez Ogayo, David R Mortensen, and Graham Neubig. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.wmt-1.40 C hat GPT MT : Competitive for High- (but Not Low-) Resource Languages . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation , pages 392--418, Singapo...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. https://aclanthology.org/P16-1009 Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Data . In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pa...

    2016

  25. [33]

    Felipe Soares, Viviane Moreira, and Karin Becker. 2018. https://aclanthology.org/L18-1546 A Large Parallel Corpus of Full-Text Scientific Articles . In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC 2018) , Miyazaki, Japan. Eur...

    2018

  26. [34]

    David Stap, Eva Hasler, Bill Byrne, Christof Monz, and Ke Tran. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20089 The fine-tuning paradox: Boosting translation quality without sacrificing LLM abilities . arXiv [cs.CL]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/463_Paper.pdf Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS . In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC '12) , pages 2214--2218, Istanbul, Turkey. Euro...

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, W...

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.859 Prompting P a LM for Translation: Assessing Strategies and Performance . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association fo...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jiayi Wang, David Adelani, Sweta Agrawal, Marek Masiak, Ricardo Rei, Eleftheria Briakou, Marine Carpuat, Xuanli He, Sofia Bourhim, Andiswa Bukula, Muhidin Mohamed, Temitayo Olatoye, Tosin Adewumi, Hamam Mokayed, Christine Mwase, Wangui Kimotho, Foutse Yuehgoh, Anuoluwapo Aremu...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Longyue Wang, Chenyang Lyu, Tianbo Ji, Zhirui Zhang, Dian Yu, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.1036.pdf Document-level machine translation with large language models . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Haoran Xu, Young Jin Kim, Amr Sharaf, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11674 A Paradigm Shift in Machine Translation: Boosting Translation Performance of Large Language Models . arXiv [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xuan Zhang, Navid Rajabi, Kevin Duh, and Philipp Koehn. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.wmt-1.43 Machine Translation with Large Language Models: Prompting, Few-shot Learning, and Fine-tuning with QL o RA . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation , pa...

    2023

  34. [42]

    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...

  35. [43]

    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 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.