The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Escaping the sentence-level paradigm in machine translation
Open accessAbstract
It is well-known that document context is vital for resolving a range of translation ambiguities, and in fact the document setting is the most natural setting for nearly all translation. It is therefore unfortunate that machine translation -- both research and production -- largely remains stuck in a decades-old sentence-level translation paradigm. It is also an increasingly glaring problem in light of competitive pressure from large language models, which are natively document-based. Much work in document-context machine translation exists, but for various reasons has been unable to catch hold. This paper suggests a path out of this rut by addressing three impediments at once: what architectures should we use? where do we get document-level information for training them? and how do we know whether they are any good? In contrast to work on specialized architectures, we show that the standard Transformer architecture is sufficient, provided it has enough capacity. Next, we address the training data issue by taking document samples from back-translated data only, where the data is not only more readily available, but is also of higher quality compared to parallel document data, which may contain machine translation output. Finally, we propose generative variants of existing contrastive metrics that are better able to discriminate among document systems. Results in four large-data language pairs (DE$\rightarrow$EN, EN$\rightarrow$DE, EN$\rightarrow$FR, and EN$\rightarrow$RU) establish the success of these three pieces together in improving document-level performance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The translation task can largely be accomplished at the sentence level despite prior work framing translation at the document level, and the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances.
“We believe this result reflects that the task can largely be accomplished at the sentence-level despite some prior work has framed translation at the document-level [64], and that the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances [52].”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [64]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419
“We believe this result reflects that the task can largely be accomplished at the sentence-level despite some prior work has framed translation at the document-level [64], and that the BLEU score does not adequately capture document-level nuances [52].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Post, M., & Junczys-Dowmunt, M.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2304.12959
- OpenAlex
- W4367061074
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
- Keywords
- document-level translation, transformer models, machine translation evaluation, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review