PreprintCited by 1Natural Language Processing TechniquesTranslation Studies and PracticesTopic Modeling

What Does LLM Refinement Actually Improve? A Systematic Study on Document-Level Literary Translation

Open access
Tan, Shaomu, Zhu, Dawei, Tran, Ke, Denkowski, Michael, Trenous, Sony, Byrne, Bill, Ribeiro, Leonardo, Hieber, Felix·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Iterative self-refinement is a simple inference-time strategy for machine translation: an LLM revises its own translation over multiple inference-time passes. Yet document-scale refinement remains poorly understood: 1) which pipelines work best, 2) what quality dimensions improve, and 3) how refiners behave. In this paper, we present a systematic study of document-level literary translation, covering nine LLMs and seven language pairs. Across nine translation-refinement granularity combinations and five refinement strategies, we find a robust recipe: document-level MT followed by segment-level refinement yields strong and stable improvements. In contrast, document-level refinement often makes fewer edits and leads to smaller or less reliable gains. Beyond granularity, A simple general refinement prompt consistently outperforms error-specific prompting and evaluate-then-refine schemes. Our large-scale human evaluation shows that refinement gains come primarily from fluency, style, and terminology, with limited and less consistent improvements in adequacy. Experiments varying model strength reveal refinement projects outputs toward the refiner's distribution rather than performing targeted error repair. These findings clarify the mechanisms and limitations of current refinement approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.13368

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A systematic study of document-level literary translation across nine LLMs and seven language pairs found that refinement gains come primarily from fluency, style, and terminology, with limited and less consistent improvement in adequacy, and that refinement projects outputs toward the refiner's own distribution rather than correcting what the draft got wrong.

    “A systematic study of document-level literary translation across nine LLMs and seven language pairs [27] finds that refinement gains come primarily from fluency, style, and terminology, with limited and less consistent improvement in adequacy - and that refinement projects outputs toward the refiner's own distribution rather than correcting what the draft actually got wrong.”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, S., Zhu, D., Tran, K., Denkowski, M., Trenous, S., Byrne, B., Ribeiro, L., & Hieber, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7161128791
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
literary translation, document-level machine translation, fluency, style, terminology, adequacy

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