What Does LLM Refinement Actually Improve? A Systematic Study on Document-Level Literary Translation
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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?
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
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2605.13368
- OpenAlex
- W7161128791
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- 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