Crowdsourcing Piedmontese to Test LLMs on Non-Standard Orthography
Authors: Gianluca Vico, Jindřich Libovický
Organizations: Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Malostranské náměstí 25, 118 00 Praha, Czech Republic
We present a crowdsourced dataset for Piedmontese, an endangered Romance language of northwestern Italy. The dataset comprises 145 Italian-Piedmontese parallel sentences derived from Flores+, with translations produced by speakers writing in their natural orthographic style rather than adhering to standardized conventions, along with manual word alignment. We use this resource to benchmark several large language models on tokenization parity, topic classification, and machine translation. Our analysis reveals that Piedmontese incurs a tokenization penalty relative to higher-resource Romance languages, yet LLMs achieve classification performance approaching that of Italian, French, and English. Machine translation results are asymmetric: models translate adequately from Piedmontese into high-resource languages, but generation into Piedmontese remains challenging. The dataset and code are publicly released.
Figures & tables
Flores+ dev 114
Ita
Si tratta della maggiore acquisizione nella storia di eBay.
Pms
A l’è la pi granda aquisission ënt la stòria d’ebay
Eng
It is the biggest acquisition in eBay’s history.
Fra
C’est la plus grande acquisition de l’histoire d’eBay.
Table 1: Sample from parallel sentences for evaluating machine translation. Annotators translated the Italian sample into Piedmontese. The Italian, French and English samples are originally from Flores+.
Figure 1: On the left, the main language used by the annotators; Icelandic is included in Other . On the right, the self-reported proficiency in Piedmontese. The majority of people uses Italian and self-reports perfect or fair proficiency in Piedmontese.
Figure 2: Age distribution of the annotators. Most annotators are 20-30 years old, while older people are more likely to know Piedmontese, but we did not reach them.
Figure 3: Parity scores with respect to English and Italian. Piedmontese has worse parity compared to the other languages; however, it is closer to one when compared to Italian.
Figure 4: This is a sample alignment. The gray background is the reference alignment, while eflomal alignment is represented by the blue circles and SimAlign one by the green crosses. The English translation of the sentence is This seems sensible, because the Earth doesn’t feel as if it’s moving, does it?
Model
F 1 ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
Eflomal
.774
.817
.735
SimAlign
.589
.726
.496
Table 2: Alignment scores of eflomal and SimAlign.
Figure 5: Comparison on the F1 scores of the models in the topic classification task. We perform bootstrapping to compute the confidence interval of the scores.
Figure 6: chrF++ scores of the different models. Each subplot shows the target language, while the sources languages are on the x-axis. The dotted horizontal lines indicate the scores obtained when using the reference text in a given language as if it were the translation.
Dev
Target
Pms
Ita
Fra
Eng
Source
Pms
-
58.80
42.48
45.95
Ita
32.62
-
57.83
60.98
Fra
26.45
54.68
-
70.89
Eng
27.02
57.60
72.25
-
Pms Pivot
-
-
44.62
46.91
Table 3: Average chrF++ scores of the models on the two sets and all directions. Note that only columns are comparable. Pivot refers to the experiments that use Italian as a pivot for the translation.
Flores+ dev 114
It is the biggest acquisition in eBay’s history.
Pms
A l’è la pi granda aquisission ënt la stòria d’ebay
Ita
Si tratta della maggiore acquisizione nella storia di eBay.
Pms → Ita
EuroLLM
È la più grande acquisizione nella storia di eBay
Gemini
È la più grande acquisizione nella storia di eBay
Table 4: Translation examples. The Ita → Pms translations are understandable, but have different spellings than the reference and across models. The Pms → Ita translations are correct, although, phrased differently than the reference translation.
Appendix figures & tables26 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric: F 1
Model
Pms
Ita
Fra
Eng
Llama
0.778
0.849
0.822
0.849
(0.047)
(0.041)
(0.044)
(0.040)
Qwen
0.671
0.772
0.778
0.750
(0.054)
(0.047)
(0.046)
(0.051)
Gemma
0.767
0.849
0.877
0.863
Appendix
Table 5: F 1 of the different models on the classification task. In parenthesis the STD of the score.
Metric: Precision
Model
Pms
Ita
Fra
Eng
Llama
0.789
0.849
0.822
0.849
(0.047)
(0.041)
(0.044)
(0.040)
Qwen
0.686
0.778
0.789
0.761
(0.054)
(0.047)
(0.046)
(0.051)
Gemma
0.767
0.849
0.877
0.863
Appendix
Table 6: Precision of the different models on the classification task. In parenthesis the STD of the score.
Metric: Recall
Model
Pms
Ita
Fra
Eng
Llama
0.767
0.849
0.822
0.849
(0.048)
(0.041)
(0.044)
(0.040)
Qwen
0.658
0.767
0.767
0.740
(0.054)
(0.047)
(0.047)
(0.052)
Gemma
0.767
0.849
0.877
0.863
Appendix
Table 7: Recall of the different models on the classification task. In parenthesis the STD of the score.
Metric: Accuracy
Model
Pms
Ita
Fra
Eng
Llama
0.767
0.849
0.822
0.849
(0.048)
(0.041)
(0.044)
(0.040)
Qwen
0.658
0.767
0.767
0.740
(0.054)
(0.047)
(0.047)
(0.052)
Gemma
0.767
0.849
0.877
0.863
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy of the different models on the classification task. In parenthesis the STD of the score.
Pms → Ita
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
42.910
63.800
44.080
0.933
(3.720)
(2.890)
(3.650)
(0.003)
Qwen
37.490
59.360
48.890
0.932
(3.730)
(2.850)
(3.810)
(0.003)
Gemma
42.090
62.920
45.960
0.935
Appendix
Table 9: Translation results from Pms to Ita.
Pms → Fra
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
21.700
47.070
70.330
0.908
(2.400)
(2.160)
(3.470)
(0.005)
Qwen
20.420
45.510
71.000
0.905
(2.500)
(2.160)
(2.920)
(0.005)
Gemma
21.550
47.170
70.680
0.908
Appendix
Table 10: Translation results from Pms to Fra.
Pms → Eng
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
20.270
48.640
71.780
0.901
(2.760)
(2.490)
(4.460)
(0.004)
Qwen
19.180
46.060
74.230
0.900
(2.690)
(2.380)
(3.790)
(0.004)
Gemma
19.970
48.200
73.510
0.900
Appendix
Table 11: Translation results from Pms to Eng.
Ita → Pms
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
6.980
34.780
83.220
0.842
(1.290)
(1.640)
(2.550)
(0.008)
Qwen
5.250
31.100
93.290
0.843
(1.540)
(1.760)
(7.820)
(0.007)
Gemma
6.270
34.090
84.580
0.841
Appendix
Table 12: Translation results from Ita to Pms.
Ita → Fra
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
33.500
58.890
54.750
0.943
(2.550)
(1.840)
(2.930)
(0.003)
Qwen
32.380
58.060
55.300
0.943
(2.510)
(1.750)
(2.940)
(0.003)
Gemma
34.260
59.610
53.520
0.942
Appendix
Table 13: Translation results from Ita to Fra.
Ita → Eng
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
32.520
60.930
52.970
0.941
(2.910)
(2.050)
(3.430)
(0.003)
Qwen
32.050
60.750
52.360
0.942
(2.790)
(1.920)
(3.110)
(0.003)
Gemma
33.410
61.440
51.580
0.941
Appendix
Table 14: Translation results from Ita to Eng.
Fra → Pms
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
3.000
27.160
95.790
0.835
(1.120)
(1.360)
(2.510)
(0.008)
Qwen
2.410
24.890
101.020
0.838
(1.110)
(1.400)
(6.610)
(0.007)
Gemma
2.960
27.450
94.370
0.831
Appendix
Table 15: Translation results from Fra to Pms.
Fra → Ita
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
27.890
55.010
58.320
0.952
(2.270)
(1.660)
(2.660)
(0.003)
Qwen
26.810
54.430
59.620
0.952
(2.450)
(1.750)
(2.710)
(0.003)
Gemma
29.270
55.710
57.120
0.952
Appendix
Table 16: Translation results from Fra to Ita.
Fra → Eng
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
46.510
69.120
37.150
0.947
(3.530)
(2.250)
(3.270)
(0.002)
Qwen
45.320
68.170
38.340
0.947
(3.510)
(2.130)
(3.400)
(0.002)
Gemma
46.410
69.290
36.160
0.947
Appendix
Table 17: Translation results from Fra to Eng.
Eng → Pms
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
3.170
28.010
94.430
0.824
(1.140)
(1.390)
(2.370)
(0.009)
Qwen
2.340
24.970
98.110
0.828
(1.200)
(1.280)
(3.870)
(0.008)
Gemma
2.460
27.470
94.370
0.825
Appendix
Table 18: Translation results from Eng to Pms.
Eng → Ita
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
29.850
56.230
54.900
0.953
(2.110)
(1.650)
(2.390)
(0.003)
Qwen
29.920
56.340
56.200
0.952
(2.560)
(1.930)
(2.790)
(0.003)
Gemma
30.770
57.210
54.380
0.953
Appendix
Table 19: Translation results from Eng to Ita.
Eng → Fra
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
52.800
71.170
33.280
0.949
(3.640)
(2.420)
(2.970)
(0.002)
Qwen
48.010
68.150
38.380
0.948
(3.130)
(1.980)
(2.820)
(0.002)
Gemma
52.420
71.090
33.750
0.947
Appendix
Table 20: Translation results from Eng to Fra.
Pms → Fra, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
23.580
49.090
68.000
0.927
(2.450)
(2.220)
(3.290)
(0.002)
Qwen
19.890
45.140
72.630
0.927
(2.460)
(2.180)
(3.190)
(0.002)
Gemma
23.740
49.450
68.140
0.927
Appendix
Table 21: Translation results with pivoting from Pms to Fra.
Pms → Eng, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
21.780
49.550
68.830
0.917
(2.910)
(2.450)
(3.870)
(0.002)
Qwen
19.340
47.160
70.800
0.917
(2.730)
(2.400)
(3.610)
(0.002)
Gemma
23.630
50.770
66.010
0.917
Appendix
Table 22: Translation results with pivoting from Pms to Eng.
Fra → Pms, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
3.990
28.780
92.600
0.836
(1.180)
(1.430)
(2.440)
(0.008)
Qwen
2.720
26.220
99.710
0.838
(1.120)
(1.430)
(7.940)
(0.007)
Gemma
3.760
28.640
92.540
0.834
Appendix
Table 23: Translation results with pivoting from Fra to Pms.
Fra → Eng, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
42.730
66.800
39.970
0.952
(3.390)
(2.190)
(3.580)
(0.001)
Qwen
42.940
65.990
40.340
0.952
(3.490)
(2.240)
(3.410)
(0.001)
Gemma
42.950
66.630
39.080
0.952
Appendix
Table 24: Translation results with pivoting from Fra to Eng.
Eng → Pms, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
3.770
28.910
92.680
0.826
(1.050)
(1.410)
(2.490)
(0.008)
Qwen
2.200
26.200
96.920
0.828
(0.980)
(1.370)
(3.500)
(0.008)
Gemma
3.560
29.210
91.640
0.826
Appendix
Table 25: Translation results with pivoting from Eng to Pms.
Eng → Fra, Pivot
Model
BLEU
chrF++
TER
COMET
Llama
47.630
67.830
37.390
0.956
(3.130)
(2.170)
(2.810)
(0.001)
Qwen
42.230
64.330
42.110
0.956
(2.970)
(1.970)
(2.750)
(0.001)
Gemma
47.460
67.640
38.090
0.956
Appendix
Table 26: Translation results with pivoting from Eng to Fra.
Parity w.r.t Pms
Model
Ita
Fra
Eng
Llama
0.905
0.898
0.569
Qwen
0.909
0.897
0.576
Gemma
0.816
0.850
0.609
Tower
0.806
0.830
0.616
Eurollm
0.784
0.858
0.639
Appendix
Table 27: Parity scores with respect to Piedmontese.
Several of the world's languages are still under-resourced in terms of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools. This is mostly due to the lack of high-quality datasets to train, develop, and evaluate systems and models for several tasks, such as Machine Translation (MT). We conduct a manual audit of the parallel and monolingual corpora available for Lombard, an under-resourced language continuum from Italy. Our analysis reveals that the perceived abundance of web-scraped data is an illusion, with massive datasets plagued by severe language misidentification, boilerplate text, and non-linguistic noise. Furthermore, we analyze the orthographic composition of the valid Lombard portions across web-scraped datasets, curated corpora, and benchmarks. Our findings show conflicting orthographical systems and severe representational bias across all corpora: high-quality data is heavily skewed towards Western Lombard varieties, with Eastern ones left on the margins. This underscores the need for variety-aware, community-driven data curation rather than purely quantity-driven scraping.
Recent strategies for low-resource machine translation rely on LLMs to generate synthetic data based on text in higher-resource languages. We revisit this idea for Romansh, a language with 6 distinct varieties. LLMs tend to confuse these varieties when translating into Romansh, but they are quite good at translating out of Romansh into a high-resource language such as German. Due to this asymmetry, the direction of data augmentation is a crucial choice. We find that contrary to recent strategies, creating synthetic translations into the higher-resource language is the superior approach, and only this approach allows us to surpass a Gemini 3 Pro baseline on German-Romansh translation (+23 BLEU over Gemini in the lowest-resource variety). A human evaluation confirms that our experiments yield the first model that generates fluent translations in the individual Romansh varieties.
Sardinian, a Romance language with roughly one million speakers, has minimal presence in modern NLP. Commercial services do not support it, and current language models do not produce it reliably. We present LLiMba, a 3B parameter Sardinian-ready model adapted from Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct through continued pretraining (CPT) and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a single 24 GB consumer GPU. The corpus contains 11.5 million tokens of Sardinian spanning LSC, Logudorese, and Campidanese, augmented with 2.4 million tokens of related Romance text as replay against register blurring. After CPT the model reaches a perplexity of 6.76 on held out Sardinian and outperforms the base across all six FLORES-200 directions. We compare five SFT configurations under matched conditions: full fine-tuning, LoRA r64, rsLoRA r128, rsLoRA r256, and DoRA r256. rsLoRA r256 wins on every direction into Sardinian, reaching 28.5 BLEU from English against 17.3 after CPT and 21.0 with full fine-tuning. The rank ablation places r128 between LoRA r64 and rsLoRA r256 on BLEU but reveals failure modes invisible to the metric, including leakage across scripts no other variant produces. LoRA r64 retains less factual content from SFT than configurations at higher rank and produces more confident fabrications, though all methods fabricate on content absent from training. DoRA r256 yields the smallest gap between training and evaluation but the worst factual accuracy. The findings indicate that adapter capacity matters more than the choice among LoRA variants for adapting a Romance pretrained base to a low resource Romance target, that stronger regularization is not uniformly beneficial, and that translation metrics smoothly order configurations whose qualitative behavior differs categorically. Perplexity comparisons across scripts must account for byte fallback tokenization, which deflates the metric for scripts other than Latin.