Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Refining Translations with LLMs: A Constraint-Aware Iterative Prompting Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A constraint-aware prompt chain--LLM-chosen keywords, dictionary lookups, and iterative self-checking--improves low-resource machine translation for 7B-parameter LLMs without fine-tuning.

desk verdict Reasonable incremental prompting recipe for low-resource MT, but the empirical claims outrun the experiments: missing dictionary-prompting baselines and untested degradations. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08348 v1 pith:EWUCPCUF submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CL

Shangfeng Chen , Xiayang Shi , Pu Li , Yinlin Li , Jingjing Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords machinetranslationlargelanguagemodelslow-resourcelanguagesretrieval-augmentedgenerationpromptengineeringbilingualdictionaryself-checkinghallucinationmitigation
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

Large language models translate familiar text well but stumble on rare or specialized words, particularly in low-resource languages. This paper tries to fix that with a training-free prompt chain: the model first scores every source word for translation importance, retrieves dictionary translations for the top-scoring keywords, includes those translations in the translation prompt as constraints, and then repeatedly asks the model to check and refine its own output against them. On ten FLORES-200 language pairs and contamination-free WMT22-24 data, the authors report BLEU and chrF++ gains with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2-7B-Instruct relative to zero- and few-shot baselines, with the clearest gains for Qwen, whose hallucinated Chinese output in non-Chinese targets is largely suppressed. The payoff, if the results generalize, is a recipe for more faithful LLM translation that needs no fine-tuning and no parallel data.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the constraint-aware prompt chain, a four-stage pipeline that runs entirely at inference time. Stage one computes an LLM priority score $p_i = f_{LLM}(x_i|X)$ for every source word and keeps the $k$ highest-scoring words as keyword set $W$. Stage two embeds each keyword, finds its nearest-neighbor translation $t_i$ in the paper's bilingual dictionary, and packages the word-translation pairs as constraint set $C$. Stage three produces an initial constrained translation $Y^1 = f_{LLM}(X, C)$. Stage four is the iterative self-checking loop $Y^{i+1} = f_{LLM}(X, C, Y^i)$, which revises until the constraints are satisfied, and a final call lets the model choose the better of the initial and refined outputs. The dictionary supplies lexical facts the model may not know; the self-checking loop is what the paper credits with suppressing hallucinations and enforcing the constraints.

What would settle it

Construct a test set of sentences built around polysemous words for which the dictionary's nearest-neighbor translation is contextually wrong; if the full constraint-and-check chain on those sentences does not lower BLEU or human faithfulness scores relative to unconstrained translation, the dictionary-retrieval step is not doing the causal work the paper claims. A second check is to replace the self-checking loop with best-of-n sampling over unconstrained translations of equal inference budget; if that matches the constrained chain's gains, iterative self-checking is not the source of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that constraining an LLM with dictionary translations of the words it judges most important, and then having the LLM revise its work against those constraints, produces measurably more faithful translations than unconstrained prompting. The central empirical claim is that this holds across multilingual 7B-parameter models (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2-7B-Instruct), across ten low-resource FLORES-200 language pairs in both directions, and on recent WMT22-24 EN-DE test sets chosen to reduce data-contamination effects. The ablation evidence supports the two load-bearing choices: LLM-guided keyword selection outperforms fixed, random, or no constraints, and iterative self-checking improves on a single constrained pass. The paper's own results also contain exceptions--some Llama pairs such as hr-en, ms-en, and no-en lose points--and the stated cause is dictionary retrieval producing contextually wrong translations on polysemous words.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each retrieved dictionary translation is the right rendering of the keyword in its actual sentence, and that the LLM's priority scores identify the words whose translation truly matters; if either fails, the injected constraint can hurt the output, as the paper's own hr-en, ms-en, and no-en results for Llama show.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any language pair covered by a decent bilingual dictionary can apply this recipe to a stock 7B instruct model, improving faithfulness without fine-tuning or parallel data.
  • For models with a dominant-language bias, the constraint-and-check loop can suppress hallucinated content in the wrong target language, as it does for Qwen2's Chinese outputs.
  • Because the gains persist on WMT22-24 sets that the paper treats as contamination-free, the improvement is unlikely to be a memorization artifact.
  • The ablation's message--that keyword selection quality drives the gain--points future work toward better importance scoring and richer dictionaries rather than heavier training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is a confidence filter on retrieved dictionary translations: the negative Llama results on hr-en, ms-en, and no-en suggest that letting the model flag or veto a contextually wrong dictionary entry could recover those losses.
  • The paper does not compare the self-checking loop against equally priced best-of-n sampling, so the specific contribution of iterative refinement versus general test-time compute is not isolated; that comparison would sharpen the recipe.
  • Because the dictionaries used cover only the languages they were built for, transferring the method to genuinely under-resourced languages will require inducing lexicons, which the paper acknowledges as a limitation.
  • A natural combination with few-shot prompting is untested: constrained revision could be applied after in-context exemplars, potentially stacking two independent faithfulness gains.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-free, multi-step prompting method for LLM-based machine translation. It first asks the LLM to assign priority scores to source words, selects the top-k keywords, retrieves their translations from a bilingual dictionary using bge-m3 embeddings, injects these translations as lexical constraints into the prompt, and then applies iterative self-checking and a final self-selection step between the initial and refined translations. Experiments on FLORES-200 low-resource language pairs and WMT22-24 EN-DE test sets, using Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2-7B-Instruct, report BLEU and chrF++ scores relative to a simple prompt baseline.

Significance. If the claimed improvements were robust, the method would be a useful training-free recipe for reducing rare-word errors and hallucinations in 7B-scale LLM translation. The paper uses external sacreBLEU metrics, evaluates on contamination-aware WMT test sets, has no fitted parameters, and candidly lists dictionary dependence as a limitation. However, the current evidence does not support the abstract's claim of 'significant improvements': the baseline is too weak, several language pairs degrade under the proposed method, and no significance testing is provided. The core idea is plausible but remains unvalidated as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Baseline; Tables 2 and 3] The baseline is only a plain 'Translate the following sentence' prompt with randomly selected few-shot examples. Section 2.1 cites Ghazvininejad et al. (2023) and Lu et al. (2023) as dictionary-based prompting methods, but the experiments never compare against these systems or against a simple prompt that appends the same dictionary translations. Consequently, the experiments cannot isolate the proposed keyword-selection and self-checking contribution from the effect of merely adding dictionary entries to the prompt, which is the load-bearing claim of the paper.
  2. [Table 2] Several language pairs show degraded scores under the proposed method, including Llama hr-en BLEU 33.42 to 29.91 and chrF++ 60.72 to 55.38, Llama ms-en BLEU 37.38 to 36.20, Llama no-en BLEU 39.47 to 39.04, Qwen nl-en BLEU 28.44 to 26.77, and Qwen sk-en BLEU 30.99 to 29.14. The abstract states that 'significant improvements over baselines' were demonstrated, and Section 5.1 only vaguely mentions a 'slight decline' without quantifying these drops. The authors need to report paired significance tests, confidence intervals, or at least a detailed error analysis explaining these negative cases.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3; Section 5] No variance, confidence interval, or paired significance test is reported anywhere. Many differences are less than 1 BLEU point (e.g., ca-en 41.48 to 41.95, da-en 43.74 to 44.24), and without statistical testing the claimed improvements cannot be distinguished from noise. This is especially important given the observed degradations in other language pairs; an aggregate or per-pair significance analysis is needed to support the central empirical claim.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4); Section 4, Dictionary] The retrieval step assumes that the nearest-neighbor match in the MUSE bilingual dictionary gives the correct translation for the keyword in its actual sentential context. The paper calls these 'ground-truth bilingual dictionaries' in Section 4, but the Conneau et al. (2017) MUSE dictionaries are induced, not ground-truth, and they do not resolve polysemy. If a retrieved dictionary translation is contextually wrong, injecting it as a hard constraint can harm output; the degradations in Table 2 are consistent with this failure mode. The paper should evaluate retrieval accuracy in context and report how often a retrieved constraint is actually used correctly, rather than assuming dictionary entries are always reliable.
  5. [Section 3.3, Eq. (8)] The final selection step uses the same LLM to choose between the initial translation Y1 and the refined translation Yfinal based on the lexical constraints and fluency. Since the LLM generated both candidates, this self-selection may be biased, and the paper does not validate that the model's chosen output correlates with the external BLEU/chrF++ metrics used in Tables 2 and 3. Reporting an oracle comparison (which of Y1 and Yfinal scores better externally) or the agreement rate between the self-selection and the external metric would clarify whether Eq. (8) actually helps or hurts the final scores.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The notation is inconsistent: the text defines the source sentence as X = {x1,...,xn} and then refers to si and wi, while Eq. (1) uses xi and Eq. (2) uses wi with wi ∈ X. Please unify the notation.
  2. [Section 4, Models] The model name appears as 'Mete-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct' in the text but 'Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct' in Table 2; please correct the typo.
  3. [Section 4, Dictionary] The sentence 'These dictionaries command.3 were meticulously crafted using Meta's internal translation tool' is garbled and incomplete; it should be rewritten.
  4. [Section 5.2] There is a typo 'free from he potential issues'; also Table 3 reports only BLEU without chrF++ and does not state the translation direction, so the results are not directly comparable to Table 2.
  5. [Section 3.1, k selection] The value of k is described as 'an adaptive threshold based on the length of the sentence,' but no formula or procedure is given. Without this detail, the method is not reproducible. The same applies to the number of self-checking iterations used in the experiments.
  6. [References] Zhong and Chiang (2020) is marked as retracted but is cited as support for contamination-free WMT evaluation; please clarify whether the retracted version is still the appropriate citation, or replace it with the relevant non-retracted literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reported gains rest on external sacreBLEU scores, not on self-defined outputs or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: a multi-step prompt chain improves BLEU/chrF++ over a plain prompting baseline on FLORES-200 and WMT22-24. The evaluation uses sacreBLEU, an external metric computed against reference translations, so the reported scores are not defined in terms of the model's own outputs or the injected constraint set. Although Eq. 8 lets the LLM choose between the initial and refined translations, this is a system component rather than a derivation of the reported metric: the final number still comes from an independent automatic measure, and Eq. 7 is an ideal specification rather than a construction that forces the output. No parameters are fitted to the test sets, and no prediction is defined as the value of a fitted input. The paper cites prior dictionary-prompting work but does not make any load-bearing self-citation, and its method is a combination of LLM keyword scoring, dictionary retrieval, and iterative prompting rather than a renaming of a known result. The missing comparison against the dictionary-prompting baselines cited in Section 2.1 is a real experimental gap, but it concerns correctness and completeness, not circularity: the proposed method is not equivalent to those baselines by construction. Under the stated criteria, no specific equation-to-equation reduction or fit-renamed-as-prediction can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on three unverified assumptions about LLM scoring, dictionary retrieval, and self-evaluation. It also introduces unspecified hyperparameters (k, iteration count). No new physical or conceptual entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • k (number of selected keywords) = adaptive, unspecified
    Eq. 2 defines W as the top-k highest-scoring words; the text says 'k is an adaptive threshold based on the length of the sentence' but gives no formula, so the value is not reproducible.
  • number of self-checking iterations = not stated
    Section 3.3 says the process repeats until all constraints are satisfied, but no stopping criterion or maximum iterations is given.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM priority scores in Eq. 1 identify the words whose correct translation is most critical for translation fidelity.
    Section 3.1 relies on this to select keywords; if the scores are noisy, the injected constraints can be irrelevant or harmful.
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor search in bge-m3 embedding space over MUSE dictionaries returns the correct in-context translation for each keyword (Eq. 4).
    Section 3.2 depends on retrieval quality; wrong dictionary entries would propagate into the translation constraints.
  • domain assumption The iterative self-checking and the final self-evaluation step (Eqs. 6 and 8) improve translation quality and correctly select the better output.
    Section 3.3 assumes the model can judge its own translations; no external verification of this selection step is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Refining Translations with LLMs: A Constraint-Aware Iterative Prompting Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWUCPCUF

@misc{pith2026241108348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Refining Translations with LLMs: A Constraint-Aware Iterative Prompting Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWUCPCUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08348}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in machine translation (MT), even without specific training on the languages in question. However, translating rare words in low-resource or domain-specific contexts remains challenging for LLMs. To address this issue, we propose a multi-step prompt chain that enhances translation faithfulness by prioritizing key terms crucial for semantic accuracy. Our method first identifies these keywords and retrieves their translations from a bilingual dictionary, integrating them into the LLM's context using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). We further mitigate potential output hallucinations caused by long prompts through an iterative self-checking mechanism, where the LLM refines its translations based on lexical and semantic constraints. Experiments using Llama and Qwen as base models on the FLORES-200 and WMT datasets demonstrate significant improvements over baselines, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach in enhancing translation faithfulness and robustness, particularly in low-resource scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed method of translation process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The prompt template for keywords extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The prompt template for translation based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The prompt template for translation based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of BLEU scores across different word selection methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of BLEU scores for Meta-Llama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.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

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.564 2023

  2. [2]

    Philip Arthur, Graham Neubig, and Satoshi Nakamura. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1162 Incorporating discrete translation lexicons into neural machine translation . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1557--1567, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1162 2016

  3. [3]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511

    arXiv 2023

  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, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03216 Bge m3-embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation . Preprint, arXiv:2402.03216

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Alexis Conneau, Guillaume Lample, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. 2017. Word translation without parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04087

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Menglong Cui, Jiangcun Du, Shaolin Zhu, and Deyi Xiong. 2024. Efficiently exploring large language models for document-level machine translation with in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07081

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Xiangyu Duan, Baijun Ji, Hao Jia, Min Tan, Min Zhang, Boxing Chen, Weihua Luo, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Bilingual dictionary based neural machine translation without using parallel sentences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.02671

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George Foster, Maxim Krikun, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan Firat. 2023. The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'23. JMLR.org

    2023

  3. [11]

    Marjan Ghazvininejad , Hila Gonen , and Luke Zettlemoyer . 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.07856 Dictionary-based Phrase-level Prompting of Large Language Models for Machine Translation . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07856

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc ' Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzm \'a n, and Angela Fan. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00474 The F lores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingua...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    a m\" a l\

    Mika H\" a m\" a l\" a inen and Khalid Alnajjar. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377713.3377801 A template based approach for training nmt for low-resource uralic languages - a pilot with finnish . In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Algorithms, Computing...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Guillaume Lample, Myle Ott, Alexis Conneau, Ludovic Denoyer, and Marc ' Aurelio Ranzato. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1549 Phrase-based & neural unsupervised machine translation . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processin...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Li, Sinong Wang, Wen-tau Yih, Hao Ma, and Madian Khabsa

    Nayeon Lee, Belinda Z. Li, Sinong Wang, Wen-tau Yih, Hao Ma, and Madian Khabsa. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.fever-1.5 Language models as fact checkers? In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), pages 36--41, Online. Associatio...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    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 a . Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In P...

    2020

  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 b . Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In P...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Mikel Artetxe, Tianlu Wang, Shuohui Chen, Daniel Simig, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Shruti Bhosale, Jingfei Du, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Sam Shleifer, Punit Singh Koura, Vishrav Chaudhary, Brian O ' Horo, Jeff Wang, Luke Zettlemoyer, Zornitsa Kozareva, M...

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Yusen Lin, Jiayong Lin, Shuaicheng Zhang, and Haoying Dai. 2021. Bilingual dictionary-based language model pretraining for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07040

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hongyuan Lu, Haoyang Huang, Dongdong Zhang, Haoran Yang, Wai Lam, and Furu Wei. 2023. Chain-of-dictionary prompting elicits translation in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06575

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chenggang Mi, Shaolin Zhu, and Rui Nie. 2021. Improving loanword identification in low-resource language with data augmentation and multiple feature fusion. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2021(1):9975078

    2021

  14. [22]

    NLLB Team , 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 Sun , Skyler Wang , Guillaume Wenzek , Al Youngblood , Bapi Akula , Loic Barrault , Gabriel ...

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Maja Popovi \'c . 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-3049 chr F : character n-gram F -score for automatic MT evaluation . In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 392--395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Matt Post. 2018. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W18-6319 A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores . In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186--191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2018

  17. [25]

    Mortensen, and Graham Neubig

    Nathaniel Robinson, Perez Ogayo, David R. Mortensen, and Graham Neubig. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.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, Sing...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Gabriele Sarti, Phu Mon Htut, Xing Niu, Benjamin Hsu, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, and Maria Nadejde. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.126 RAMP : Retrieval and attribute-marking enhanced prompting for attribute-controlled translation . In Proceedings of the 61s...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2024. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '23, Red Hook, NY, USA. Cu...

    2024

  20. [28]

    David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.859 Prompting P a LM for translation: Assessing strategies and performance . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze Bai, Jinzheng...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jiajun Zhang and Chengqing Zong. 2016. Bridging neural machine translation and bilingual dictionaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.07272

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Xing Jie Zhong and David Chiang. 2020. [retracted] look it up: Bilingual and monolingual dictionaries improve neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 538--549

    2020

  25. [33]

    Kun Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Zhipeng Chen, Wentong Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Ji-Rong Wen, and Jiawei Han. 2023. Don't make your llm an evaluation benchmark cheater. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01964

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shaolin Zhu, Menglong Cui, and Deyi Xiong. 2024 a . Towards robust in-context learning for machine translation with large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 202...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Shaolin Zhu, Leiyu Pan, Bo Li, and Deyi Xiong. 2024 b . Landermt: Dectecting and routing language-aware neurons for selectively finetuning llms to machine translation. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Shaolin Zhu, Leiyu Pan, and Deyi Xiong. 2024 c . Feds-icl: Enhancing translation ability and efficiency of large language model by optimizing demonstration selection. Information Processing & Management, 61(5):103825

    2024

  29. [37]

    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...

  30. [38]

    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 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.