Evaluating LLM-Based Translation of a Low-Resource Technical Language: The Medical and Philosophical Greek of Galen

As large language models become capable translators of classical texts, a key challenge is deciding which outputs need expert review when no human reference exists. This study tests reference-free error triage through Pali-to-English translation. Three LLMs translated 15,493 passages. Five signals were compared: source novelty, source-candidate embedding distance, peer-translation disagreement, English-to-Pali backtranslation, and no-reference GEMBA scoring. Signals were calibrated on a 3,000-item reference-informed LLM-adjudicated sample and checked against a 500-item author-adjudicated anchor. Human references supported calibration and validation only; they were never used to compute the risk signals. Source novelty was a useful source-side risk prior but not a per-candidate error detector. Peer disagreement and backtranslation provided secondary signal. The strongest method was no-reference GEMBA scoring by a panel of models generally regarded as stronger than the translators: reviewing the top 10% by GEMBA risk captured 81.6% of panel-major errors in the calibration set. GEMBA also remained the best reference-free signal against the author anchor. A same-tier panel, with self-scoring excluded, remained useful but performed worse, indicating that evaluator strength matters beyond the prompt alone. A budgeted workflow is proposed, combining source novelty, peer disagreement, and stronger candidate-aware judging to allocate human review. Transfer to other classical languages, including Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit, remains to be tested.

Machine Translation (MT) for Ancient Greek (AG) to Modern Greek (MG) is a low-resource task, constrained by the lack of large-scale, high-quality parallel data. We address this gap by introducing the AG-MG Parallel Corpus, a new resource containing 132,481 sentence-aligned pairs derived from literary, historical, and biblical texts. We present a novel corpus creation pipeline that combines web-scraped, excerpt-level data with a multi-stage sentence-level alignment, and refinement process. Our method uses VecAlign with LaBSE embeddings, which we first fine-tune on a manually-aligned AG-MG subset, followed by an LLM-based error/misalignment correction phase using Gemini 2.5 Flash to ensure high alignment quality. Furthermore, we provide the first comprehensive benchmark of modern MT models on this task, evaluating three fine-tuning strategies across NMT models (NLLB, M2M100) and a Greek LLM (Llama-Krikri-8B). Our experiments show that fine-tuning yields significant improvements over base models, increasing performance by up to +10.3 BLEU points. Specifically, full-parameter fine-tuning of Llama-Krikri-8B achieves the highest overall performance with a BLEU score of 13.16, while the QLoRA-adapted M2M100-1.2B model demonstrates the largest relative gains and highly competitive results. Our dataset and models represent a significant contribution to Greek NLP.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are considered to be a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to human judgment for Machine Translation (MT) evaluation. With MT evaluation spanning a large number of language pairs, domains and levels of annotation granularity, LLMs must be thoroughly evaluated across these dimensions before being reliably used as alternatives to human evaluation. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of LLMs for two prominent MT quality evaluation schemes: Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA) by comparing their agreement with human annotators. We present results on a long-context test set of 70 language pairs and the publicly available WMT23 and WMT25 data, investigating both score and error span annotation agreement across a variety of language pairs and domains. Our results show that while LLM agreement with human annotators exceeds agreement between human annotators for some evaluation tasks, both vary substantially across annotation schemes, language pairs and domains and remain unreliable for most settings. Furthermore, we identify challenges facing both human and LLM annotators: humans are particularly challenged by fine-grained MQM annotations and low-resource language pairs, while LLMs struggle with minor errors, wrong language variants and error span annotation. Our results highlight the potential for improvement for both human and LLM annotation performance, possibly through human-LLM collaborative annotation pipelines that address the reliability issues identified in this work.