Quality Estimation (QE) is essential for assessing machine translation quality in reference-less settings, particularly for domain-specific and low-resource language scenarios. In this paper, we investigate sentence-level QE for English to Indic machine translation across four domains (Healthcare, Legal, Tourism, and General) and five language pairs. We systematically compare zero-shot, few-shot, and guideline-anchored prompting across selected closed-weight and open-weight LLMs. Findings indicate that while closed-weight models achieve strong performance via prompting alone, prompt-only approaches remain fragile for open-weight models, especially in high-risk domains. To address this, we adopt ALOPE, a framework for LLM-based QE that uses Low-Rank Adaptation with regression heads attached to selected intermediate Transformer layers. We also extend ALOPE with recently proposed Low-Rank Multiplicative Adaptation (LoRMA). Our results show that intermediate-layer adaptation consistently improves QE performance, with gains in semantically complex domains, indicating a path toward more robust QE in practical scenarios. We release code and domain-specific QE datasets publicly to support further research.
Figures & tables
Domain
Langs
Train
Test
Healthcare
Hi/Mr/Ta/Gu
13,280
1,660
Legal
Gu/Ta/Te
6,160
770
Tourism
Hi/Mr/Te
13,840
1,730
General
Hi/Mr/Ta/Te/Gu
18,880
2,360
Table 1: Indic-Domain-QE dataset composition, showing domain coverage, language pairs, and the number of instances in the train and test splits aggregated across languages.
Figure 1: Methodological Framework uses open-weight models for (i) prompt-only approaches (zero-shot, few-shot, guideline-anchored), and (ii) ALOPE adaptation with LoRA/LoRMA.
Layer
R=32 , α=16
R=64 , α=32
R=128 , α=32
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
\Block 4-1 General
L −1
0.363
-0.026
0.385
0.180
0.190
0.218
0.476
0.155
0.605
0.267
0.435
† 0.388
0.384
0.105
0.524
0.196
0.391
0.320
L −7
0.171
0.157
0.389
0.176
0.212
0.221
0.213
0.059
0.469
0.252
0.371
0.273
0.057
0.057
0.346
0.134
0.320
0.183
L −9
0.123
0.090
0.531
0.163
0.458
0.273
0.311
0.038
0.531
0.279
0.485
0.329
0.051
0.107
0.300
0.061
0.343
0.172
L −11
0.178
0.061
0.492
-0.029
0.484
0.237
0.321
0.034
0.568
-0.021
0.480
0.276
0.308
0.007
0.610
0.292
0.457
0.335
\Block 4-1 Healthcare
L −1
0.520
0.025
0.201
NA
0.377
0.281
0.382
0.033
0.248
NA
0.490
0.288
0.346
0.156
0.165
NA
0.452
0.280
Table 2: Spearman’s ( ρ ) scores obtained for ALOPE layer-wise (L) experiments with LoRA across different domains and language pairs. The bolded values represent the highest spearman scores obtained for each language pair in each domain. The ( † ) represents the highest average obtained in each domain. ‘NA’ indicates that data from that specific domain and language pair is unavailable.
Domain
Prompt setting
Model family
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Average
General
Zero-shot
Closed
0.424
0.597
0.848
0.392
0.924
† 0.637
Open
0.390
-0.058
0.772
0.382
0.812
0.460
Few-shot + Guidelines
Closed
0.475
0.582
0.886
0.238
0.776
0.591
Open
0.408
0.038
0.832
0.442
0.849
0.514
Few-shot (No Guidelines)
Closed
0.563
0.314
0.940
-0.031
0.860
0.529
Open
0.418
0.375
0.867
0.486
0.752
0.580
Table 4: Reports best Spearman’s correlation ( ρ ) achieved for each domain and language pair across all evaluated models, including both open- and closed-weight LLMs. The bolded values represent the highest spearman scores obtained for each language pair in each domain. The ( † ) represents the highest average obtained in each domain. Detailed model-wise results are provided in Appendices F , G , and H .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Few-shot QE Prompt (Without Guidelines)
Figure 3: Few-shot QE Prompt (With Guidelines)
Figure 4: Zero-shot prompt
Figure 5: ALOPE prompt
Figure 9
Domain
Model
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
General
Gemini-1.5-Pro
-0.082
-0.232
0.120
0.159
0.856
0.848
0.191
0.073
0.774
0.924
0.372
0.354
Gemini-2.5-Pro
0.328
0.424
0.747
0.597
0.715
0.805
0.542
0.392
0.918
0.786
0.650
0.601
Qwen3-14B
0.319
0.390
-0.159
-0.058
0.730
0.772
0.393
0.328
0.499
0.649
0.356
0.416
Gemma3-27B
0.079
0.116
-0.259
-0.290
0.776
0.701
0.532
0.382
0.195
0.102
0.265
0.202
LLaMA-3.2-3B
0.065
0.056
-0.184
-0.164
0.099
0.249
-0.366
-0.381
-0.174
-0.024
-0.112
-0.053
Appendix
Table 7: Zero-shot prompt-only QE performance. Spearman’s ( ρ ) and Pearson’s ( r ) scores are reported for all language pairs. Best ρ per language pair in bold .‘NA’ indicates that a language pair is unavailable for that specific domain.
Domain
Model
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
General
Gemini-1.5-Pro
-0.004
-0.094
-0.063
0.087
0.881
0.850
-0.319
-0.169
0.859
0.761
0.271
0.287
Gemini-2.5-Pro
0.625
0.475
0.638
0.582
0.834
0.886
0.255
0.238
0.926
0.776
0.656
0.591
Qwen3-14B
0.247
0.279
-0.159
-0.058
0.720
0.783
0.498
0.442
0.850
0.849
0.431
0.459
Gemma3-27B
0.489
0.376
0.041
0.038
0.770
0.832
0.502
0.352
0.799
0.649
0.520
0.449
LLaMA-3.2-3B
-0.637
-0.527
-0.101
-0.251
0.479
0.329
0.150
0.186
-0.332
-0.200
-0.088
-0.093
Appendix
Table 8: Few-shot with guidelines QE performance. Spearman’s ( ρ ) and Pearson’s ( r ) scores are reported for all language pairs. Best ρ per language pair in bold . ‘NA’ indicates that a language pair is unavailable for that specific domain.
Domain
Model
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
r
ρ
General
Gemini-1.5-Pro
0.107
0.022
-0.213
-0.103
0.744
0.743
-0.035
-0.185
0.941
0.791
0.309
0.254
Gemini-2.5-Pro
0.713
0.563
0.447
0.314
0.888
0.940
-0.095
-0.031
0.939
0.860
0.578
0.529
Qwen3-14B
-0.128
-0.040
-0.235
-0.234
0.761
0.867
0.319
0.235
0.658
0.752
0.275
0.316
Gemma3-27B
0.177
0.234
0.489
0.375
0.519
0.450
0.636
0.486
0.765
0.627
0.517
0.434
LLaMA-3.2-3B
0.497
0.418
-0.101
0.014
0.393
0.477
0.223
0.188
0.078
0.228
0.218
0.265
Appendix
Table 9: Few-shot without guidelines QE performance. Spearman’s ( ρ ) and Pearson’s ( r ) scores are reported for all language pairs. Best ρ per language pair in bold . ‘NA’ indicates that a language pair is unavailable for that specific domain.
Domain
Prompt setting
En-Hi
En-Mr
En-Ta
En-Te
En-Gu
Avg
\Block 5-1 General
Zero-shot
0.056
-0.164
0.249
-0.381
-0.024
-0.053
Few-shot + Guidelines
-0.527
-0.251
0.329
0.186
-0.200
-0.093
Few-shot (No Guidelines)
0.418
0.014
0.477
0.188
0.228
0.265
ALOPE (LoRA)
0.476
0.157
0.610
0.292
0.485
† 0.404
ALOPE (LoRMA)
0.392
0.314
0.507
0.168
0.421
0.360
\Block 5-1 Healthcare
Zero-shot
-0.234
0.174
0.406
NA
-0.055
0.073
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of Spearman’s correlation ( ρ ) achieved by LLaMA-3.2-3B across Prompt-only approaches and ALOPE. The bolded values represent the highest Spearman scores obtained for each language pair in each domain. The ( † ) represents the highest average obtained in each domain. ‘NA’ indicates that a language pair is unavailable for that specific domain.
Machine Translation (MT) and Quality Estimation (QE) perform well in general domains but degrade under domain mismatch. This dissertation studies how to adapt MT and QE systems to specialized domains through a set of data-focused contributions. Chapter 2 presents a similarity-based data selection method for MT. Small, targeted in-domain subsets outperform much larger generic datasets and reach strong translation quality at lower computational cost. Chapter 3 introduces a staged QE training pipeline that combines domain adaptation with lightweight data augmentation. The method improves performance across domains, languages, and resource settings, including zero-shot and cross-lingual cases. Chapter 4 studies the role of subword tokenization and vocabulary in fine-tuning. Aligned tokenization-vocabulary setups lead to stable training and better translation quality, while mismatched configurations reduce performance. Chapter 5 proposes a QE-guided in-context learning method for large language models. QE models select examples that improve translation quality without parameter updates and outperform standard retrieval methods. The approach also supports a reference-free setup, reducing reliance on a single reference set. These results show that domain adaptation depends on data selection, representation, and efficient adaptation strategies. The dissertation provides methods for building MT and QE systems that perform reliably in domain-specific settings.
Learned quality estimation (QE) models such as COMETKiwi are widespread and work well for general machine translation evaluation. However, they are known to struggle on unseen domains, limiting their performance in a real-world localisation context. We show that they are insensitive to some important factors in localisation, such as whether numbers are translated accurately, or even whether the correct number of spaces and punctuation are preserved in a translation. Further, a key capability for optimisation of machine translation is the ability of QE models to accurately rank different translations of a single segment, which suffers significantly from the domain transfer. In the absence of large-scale direct assessment data, we propose principled fine-tuning approaches to reduce the domain gap with even small amounts of post-editing data. Using a multi-task fine-tuning approach and a simple tokeniser intervention, we create a QE model which proves markedly better at distinguishing preferred post-edits from rejected initial translations in a localisation context. We show that preferences and artificial continuous scores stabilise each other, and argue that to calibrate metrics both in terms of their absolute scores and comparisons between translation of the same source, both types of signal are needed.
Kathy Hämmerl, Gabriel Bretschner, Joern Wuebker
Technical University of Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning · LILT
Current state-of-the-art Quality Estimation (QE) in machine translation relies on massive, proprietary LLMs, raising data privacy concerns. We demonstrate that smaller, open-source LLMs (<30B parameters) are a viable, cost-effective and privacy-preserving alternative. Using a single-pass prompting strategy, our models simultaneously generate quality scores, MQM error annotations, suggested error corrections, and full post-editions. Our analysis shows these models achieve highly competitive system-level correlations with human judgments that outperform traditional neural metrics, fine-tuned models, and human inter-annotator agreement, effectively approximating the capabilities of much larger proprietary LLMs.
Kamil Guttmann, Zofia Fraś, Artur Nowakowski +1
Laniqo, Pozna´n, Poland · Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna´n, Poland