Loci Similes: A Benchmark for Extracting Intertextualities in Latin Literature

Computational approaches to intertextuality have advanced from string matching to neural retrieval, yet their outputs, similarity scores and parallel-passage lists, identify where texts reuse one another without characterizing how or why. We recast fine-grained intertextuality extraction as an agentic task in which a large language model (LLM) reads two text units in full and, through a constrained tool interface, must ground each proposed reuse in exact character spans on both sides and label it under a five-dimension typology of reuse (form, aspect, source-marking, function, stance). We validate the approach on an exhaustive comparison of the Analects with the Book of Han, where three domain experts adjudicate a pooled multi-model candidate set into a benchmark of 2,533 intertextual pairs. Against this standard we study twelve LLMs, reporting precision (56%-93%), a 51$\times$ cost spread at comparable quality, and how well their confidence is calibrated. Expert agreement traces a reliability gradient: dimensions legible on the textual surface are annotated consistently, while those requiring inference of intent are contested, delimiting the claims such annotation supports. Scaling the validated extractor to the full Twenty-Four Histories (65,380 comparisons, 5,766 pairs) recovers corpus-level structure a similarity score cannot express. The interpretive composition of citation shows no systematic change across eighteen centuries, yet the same passage is quoted less and less literally. Stability in the aggregate with drift in the individual case is what a cultural-attraction account expects. We release the extraction protocol and the expert-adjudicated benchmark.

We introduce a benchmark dataset for question answering and translation in bilingual Latin and English settings, containing about 7,800 question-answer pairs. The questions are drawn from Latin pedagogical sources, including exams, quizbowl-style trivia, and textbooks ranging from the 1800s to the present. After automated extraction, cleaning, and manual review, the dataset covers a diverse range of question types: knowledge- and skill-based, multihop reasoning, constrained translation, and mixed language pairs. To our knowledge, this is the first QA benchmark centered on Latin. As a case study, we evaluate three large language models -- LLaMa 3, Qwen QwQ, and OpenAI's o3-mini -- finding that all perform worse on skill-oriented questions. Although the reasoning models perform better on scansion and literary-device tasks, they offer limited improvement overall. QwQ performs slightly better on questions asked in Latin, but LLaMa3 and o3-mini are more task dependent. This dataset provides a new resource for assessing model capabilities in a specialized linguistic and cultural domain, and the creation process can be easily adapted for other languages. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/slanglab/RespondeoQA

Digital humanities projects increasingly rely on machine translation and large language models to widen access to classical, religious, and otherwise under-translated textual traditions. Yet standard translation benchmarks are poorly suited to such materials: they typically compare a system output against a single reference translation, even though classical texts often support multiple faithful renderings that differ in terminology, register, and interpretation. This article introduces PaliBench, both a benchmark for Pali-to-English translation and a reusable method for constructing multi-reference translation benchmarks for classical languages. The Pali case study draws on passages from the Sutta Pitaka aligned with independent English translations by Bhikkhu Sujato, Bhikkhu Thanissaro, and Bhikkhu Bodhi. The workflow combines LLM-assisted alignment of independently segmented translations, automated verification against source files, passage-level quality filtering, deduplication of formulaic repetitions, and multi-metric evaluation against multiple human references. The resulting benchmark contains 1,700 passages spanning 8,389 segments and approximately 345,000 tokens. We use it to evaluate ten contemporary large language models with complementary metrics, finding strong cross-metric concordance in system rankings alongside substantial variation in reliability and semantic outlier rates. The broader contribution is methodological: PaliBench shows how existing scholarly translations can be transformed into evaluation infrastructure for interpretive textual traditions without treating any single translation as definitive. Although developed for Pali Buddhist texts, the approach could be portable to other classical corpora where sufficient independent reference translations exist.