Papers for

machine translation engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Sanskrit uses more tokens than English per proposition under current tokenizers

Fewer Words, Not Fewer Tokens: Measuring the Sanskrit Tokenization Penalty per Proposition

Abstract: Sanskrit fuses case, number, person and tense into word endings and chains clauses into compounds, so it is information-dense per word. Whether that density survives subword tokenization is a separate question, to be asked per unit of meaning rather than per word. On identical FLORES-200 devtest content, Sanskrit costs 1.774-2.187 times the English tokens under deployed tokenizers with vocabularies of 200,019 ids or more, but only 1.325-1.353 times the Hindi tokens. Against a deployed English tokenizer, Sanskrit-trained BPE arms then look cheaper per proposition than English on contemporary prose (0.887). Against a matched English control, the same algorithm and vocabulary trained on the English side of the same corpus, that flip disappears: at 32,000 and 64,000 pieces all 8 matched pairs, each size-matched arm against both a pair-matched and a byte-matched control, sit above 1.0 on prose with 95% intervals excluding it. The gap closes as the vocabulary grows: at 128,000 pieces the BPE pair reads 0.983 in domain while staying above parity out of domain (1.025) and on FLORES (1.116). The ratio factorises into a character-length ratio and a tokens-per-character ratio, the second near 1 throughout: what survives matched tokenization is character-level length, which Sanskrit prose lacks over English in SLP1 (1.028) and Sanskrit verse has (0.596). The robust statement is about deployed practice: on contemporary prose and on FLORES, with the Sanskrit side in SLP1 against the deployed o200k English pivot, Sanskrit costs 1.831-2.899 English tokens per proposition under the tokenizers people actually ship. Code, the results snapshot and every table here are public.

Fri 11 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Sanskrit packs a lot of meaning into each word, so you might expect it to need fewer tokens when split up by computer programs. But the authors show that under commonly used tokenizers, Sanskrit actually needs about 1.8 to 2.9 times more English tokens for the same meaning in prose. This is mostly because Sanskrit has longer character strings rather than more tokens per character. The study also compares Sanskrit to Hindi and shows Sanskrit's tokenization cost is higher than Hindi’s, providing insights into language processing tools for Sanskrit.
Open 2609.12960v1

Fixed range chunking improves translation quality for long documents

Doc2FRC: Length-Consistent Document-Level Machine Translation via Fixed-Range Chunking

Abstract: Advanced large language models (LLMs) with long context windows can substantially reduce input truncation in document-level machine translation (DocMT). However, direct Doc2Doc translation remains prone to n-gram repetition and progressive quality degradation. A common remedy is to segment the document into finer-grained chunks. Nonetheless, conventional rule-based chunking approaches fail to handle the length distribution mismatch between training and inference. To address this, we introduce Fixed-Range Chunking (FRC), utilizing dynamic programming to partition documents into chunks within a predefined length interval. By consistently applying FRC during training and inference, the input documents of any length are mapped to the same length distribution, substantially reducing train-test length mismatch. Centered on FRC, we propose a lightweight dual-boundary matching algorithm for chunk alignment, alongside four distinct training strategies. Experimental results show that FRC-based fine-tuning substantially improves 7B LLMs over direct Doc2Doc fine-tuning and outperforms existing DocMT methods on IWSLT2017. We further construct GlobVDoc, a 10-language test set independent of mainstream DocMT training sources, and show that FRC improves out-of-distribution document translation.

Fri 11 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Long documents are hard for translation programs because they often cut off parts or repeat words, leading to worse results. The authors created a way to split documents into chunks of consistent length for both training and translating. This method helps the program learn better and keeps translation quality steady even on new types of documents. It worked well in tests with multiple languages and different data sets.
Open 2609.12674v1

Expert pruning improves model compression for machine translation

ESTS at WMT26: Routing-Informed Expert Pruning for Model Compression

Abstract: We describe six submissions under the team name ESTS to the unconstrained WMT26 Model Compression Shared Task for English--Simplified Chinese and English--Egyptian Arabic. We submit three compression operating points per translation direction, all derived from GPT-OSS-20B. We use task-specific routing mass to rank experts and cross-lingual routing divergence to allocate retained capacity across layers, then physically remove low-importance experts. The resulting specialists are recovery-tuned on GPT-5.1-generated synthetic translation data and further compressed by applying MXFP4 quantization to the retained expert projection weights. We additionally implement a robust inference system for the instruction-conditioned WMT26 setting, including category inference, output validation, retries, segmented fallback, and source-owned JSON reconstruction. Across our six submissions, parameter counts range from 4.186B to 7.770B and packed artifact sizes from 4.55 to 6.33~GiB. Internal xCOMET-XL evaluation using GPT-5.1 pseudo-references provides an internal comparison across the submitted compression operating points.

Fri 11 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Machine translation models can be very large and slow. The team named ESTS developed a way to shrink large translation models by identifying and removing less important pieces called experts. They then fine-tune the smaller models on synthetic translation examples to keep quality high and use special compression techniques to make the models smaller. Their method allows for different sizes of compressed models and improved robustness when translating between English, Simplified Chinese, and Egyptian Arabic. They also created a system to help manage various challenges during translation inference.
Open 2609.12310v1

New method identifies language neurons more precisely in multilingual AI models

Distribution-aware Language Neuron Identification in Multilingual Large Language Models

Abstract: Multilingual large language models (mLLMs) contain a small fraction of feed-forward neurons that are sensitive to particular languages, commonly termed language-specific neurons. Existing work measures language specificity using the entropy of each neuron's language-wise probabilities of being active, where a neuron is considered active when its activation value is positive. However, this approach may not fully capture the multilingual nature of mLLMs, where language representations are distributional and mutually related. We propose Distribution-aware Language Neuron selection, which leverages pairwise relationships between per-language activation distributions over the full activation range, including negative values. Specifically, we quantify each neuron's language specificity by clustering languages using pairwise overlap coefficients between their activation distributions. Across two mLLMs and two held-out corpora, our identifier more effectively isolates language-specific causal effects, yielding up to 4.9$\times$ higher on-target language damage per neuron while preserving off-target language performance.

Thu 10 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Multilingual AI models use certain neurons that respond mostly to specific languages. Previous methods identified these neurons by checking if their activation was simply positive or not. The authors propose a better way by looking at the full range of neuron activations across languages and how these activation patterns overlap. This new method can more accurately find neurons that are truly language-specific, which helps understand how multilingual models process different languages.
Open 2609.10993v1

Machine translation accuracy improves by accounting for term variation

Improving Term Evaluation in Machine Translation: Variation Matters

Abstract: Terminology evaluation in machine translation (MT) usually assumes a single correct target form per source term. However, human translators routinely introduce variation that current metrics penalize as inconsistency. We examine how to account for this variation in document-level MT evaluation of English-French scientific translation, combining glossary-based accuracy, translation consistency, and a new cross-term variation (CTV) diagnostic measure that tests whether variation relationships are preserved across languages. Based on analyses of two parallel corpora, translated by four MT systems, we find that (1) MT systems generate less target-side variation than human translators; (2) transfer patterns strongly depend on the variation type; (3) consistency rankings vary with the choice of metric; and (4) constraining MT with a glossary improves accuracy and consistency but degrades CTV by suppressing valid variation. We argue for variation-aware evaluation that conditions consistency penalties on whether target-side variation mirrors source-side variation.

Tue 8 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Machine translation systems usually treat each word or term as having only one correct translation, but human translators often use different valid versions of the same term. The authors studied English-to-French scientific translations and found that current evaluation methods wrongly penalize translations for these natural variations. They introduced a new way to measure whether variations in the translation reflect variations in the source text. Their work shows that recognizing valid variations can make evaluation of translation quality more accurate and fair.
Open 2609.08779v1

Large language models can translate without understanding meaning

Translation Indeterminacy and the Distributional Fallacy

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are commonly associated with the distributional hypothesis, according to which (1) semantic meaning is grounded in distributional patterns of linguistic context, and (2) knowledge of cross-linguistic distributional correspondences allows for successful translation. This paper rejects the first claim as a causal inversion: linguistic distributions reflect patterns arising from meaning-making practices rather than constituting their source. At the same time, it accepts the second claim, arguing that translation -human or machine - can succeed without requiring access to meaning or reference. Knowledge of interlingual distributional correspondence and their inferential organization may be sufficient for translation. The paper develops an ecological-enactivist perspective, according to which reference and meaning are grounded in agent-environment interaction and stabilized through action-grounded concepts, forms of world-involving cognition that current LLMs do not possess.

Mon 7 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
People often think language models learn meaning by looking at word patterns, but this paper argues it's the other way around: meaning in language shapes these patterns. The authors say translation between languages can still work by using patterns alone, without true understanding of meaning. They propose that real meaning comes from how people interact with the world, something current large language models don't do. So, language models can translate by mapping pattern correspondences, but they lack grounded understanding of what words actually mean.
Open 2609.07717v1