Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across many downstream tasks, yet their effectiveness in extremely low-resource machine translation remains limited. Standard adaptation techniques typically rely on large-scale parallel data or extensive fine-tuning, which are infeasible for the long tail of underrepresented languages. In this work, we investigate a more constrained question: in data-scarce settings, to what extent can linguistically similar pivot languages and few-shot demonstrations provide useful guidance for on-the-fly adaptation in LLMs? We study a data-efficient experimental setup that combines linguistically related pivot languages with few-shot in-context examples, without any parameter updates, and evaluate translation behavior under controlled conditions. Our analysis shows that while pivot-based prompting can yield improvements in certain configurations, particularly in settings where the target language is less well represented in the model's vocabulary, the gains are often modest and sensitive to few shot example construction. For closely related or better represented varieties, we observe diminishing or inconsistent gains. Our findings provide empirical guidance on how and when inference-time prompting and pivot-based examples can be used as a lightweight alternative to fine-tuning in low-resource translation settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Training Data Structure. The input x contains the system instruction, retrieved semantic context (top-5), and the pivot scaffolding. The target y contains only the model’s generated translation.
Table 6: Tokens per word across languages for Tower and Hermes models. Lower values indicate more efficient tokenization.
Language
Model
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=4
k=5
Arabic
Hermes
24.09
24.89
25.17
23.79
24.06
Tower
13.08
12.70
11.85
12.06
11.68
Konkani
Hermes
28.96
27.45
27.82
25.95
26.80
Tower
10.78
8.71
9.69
9.16
8.24
Appendix
Table 7: chrF scores between pivot translations and generated translations for different values of k . Lower scores indicate greater divergence from the pivot output, suggesting that the model is not simply reproducing the pivot translations.
Language Pair
Jaccard Similarity
Eng-Mar
0.0002
Eng-Gom
0.0121
Mar-Gom
0.1054
Appendix
Table 8: Word-level Jaccard similarity scores for the Konkani corpus. Marathi and Konkani show substantially higher lexical overlap than English with either language.
Language Pair
Jaccard Similarity
Eng-MSA
0.0010
Eng-Aeb
0.0010
MSA-Aeb
0.1646
Appendix
Table 9: Word-level Jaccard similarity scores for the Arabic corpus. MSA and Tunisian Arabic show moderate lexical overlap, while both exhibit minimal overlap with English.
Model
Source
Target
k
BLEU
chrF++
Ablation: Number of In-Context Examples ( k )
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Gom
0
1.28
0.69
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Gom
1
3.67
21.01
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Gom
2
3.38
21.25
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Gom
3
3.39
19.30
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation on the number of in-context examples ( k ) for English → Konkani direct translation.
Model
Source
Target
k
BLEU
chrF++
Ablation: Number of In-Context Examples ( k )
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Aeb
0
4.19
17.62
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Aeb
1
4.46
19.49
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Aeb
2
4.46
16.23
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Aeb
3
4.07
15.59
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation on the number of in-context examples ( k ) for English → Tn direct translation.
Model
Source
Pivot
Target
k
BLEU
chrF++
Ablation: Number of In-Context Examples ( k ) using Marathi Pivot (No Fine-Tuning)
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
English
Mar
Gom
0
2.07
1.30
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
English
Mar
Gom
1
2.58
16.03
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
English
Mar
Gom
2
5.68
8.94
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
English
Mar
Gom
3
4.11
17.66
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation on the number of in-context examples ( k ) for English → Marathi → Konkani translation.
Model
Source
Pivot
Target
k
BLEU
chrF++
Ablation: Number of In-Context Examples ( k ) using MSA Pivot (No Fine-Tuning)
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Msa
Aeb
0
4.37
16.45
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Msa
Aeb
1
3.46
18.74
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Msa
Aeb
2
4.99
16.57
Unbabel/TowerInstruct-v0.1
Eng
Msa
Aeb
3
4.77
17.32
Appendix
Table 13: Ablation on the number of in-context examples ( k ) for English → Msa → Aeb translation
Model
Source
Pivot
Target
k
BLEU
chrF++
Δ chrF++
Ablation: Number of In-Context Examples ( k ) using Hindi Pivot (No Fine-Tuning)
NousResearch/Hermes-2-Pro-Llama-3-8B
NousResearch/Hermes-2-Pro-Llama-3-8B
English
Hin
Gom
0
2.86
25.39
+0.49
NousResearch/Hermes-2-Pro-Llama-3-8B
English
Hin
Gom
1
2.47
24.12
-6.22
NousResearch/Hermes-2-Pro-Llama-3-8B
English
Hin
Gom
2
2.47
23.96
-3.63
NousResearch/Hermes-2-Pro-Llama-3-8B
English
Hin
Gom
3
2.41
23.69
-2.20
Appendix
Table 14: Ablation on the number of in-context examples ( k ) for English → Hindi → Konkani translation using Nous Hermes. Δ chrF++ is computed relative to the Marathi-pivot setting at the same k . Scores computed with SacreBLEU ( Post, 2018 ) ; signatures in Appendix A.2 .
Parameter
Value
batch_size
1
num_train_epochs
1.5
warmup_ratio
0.03
logging_steps
25
learning_rate
2e-4
gradient_checkpointing
True
Appendix
Table 15: Training parameters used in the model training process.
Pre-trained Large Language Model (LLMs) are effective on many tasks in zero-shot and few-shot settings. For machine translation of low-resource languages, the obvious options are few-shot prompting and fine-tuning on a small parallel set. We ask: what if moderate amounts of low-resource monolingual data are also available? We argue that, rather than continued pretraining, a more effective use of this data is the pre-LLM era technique of back-translation (BT). The current fine-tuned LLM translates monolingual sentences in each language, and the resulting pairs train it in the reverse direction. Updates on the parallel set are interleaved for stable learning. With 1K parallel pairs on Odia and Swahili, BT beats continued pretraining into the low-resource language by 7.7 to 16.4 XCOMET-XXL points in domain. With beam-decoded intermediate translations, it also beats a model with 10 time more parallel data. In-context examples retrieved from the parallel data further improve BT. We also analyze the source, quality and amount of monolingual text. Across five low-resource languages, with Hindi as a high-resource control, and two 3B backbones, BT improves translation into the low-resource language by 16 to 173% XCOMET-XXL over parallel-only fine-tuning. Blind human evaluation on Odia and Sanskrit agrees with the automatic metrics.
We investigate how large language models perform on low-resource languages by benchmarking eight LLMs across five experimental conditions in English, Kazakh, and Mongolian. Using 50 hand-crafted questions spanning factual, reasoning, technical, and culturally grounded categories, we evaluate 2,000 responses on accuracy, fluency, and completeness. We find a consistent performance gap of 13.8-16.7 percentage points between English and low-resource language conditions, with models maintaining surface-level fluency while producing significantly less accurate content. Cross-lingual transfer-prompting models to reason in English before translating back-yields selective gains for bilingual architectures (+2.2pp to +4.3pp) but provides no benefit to English-dominant models. Our results demonstrate that current LLMs systematically underserve low-resource language communities, and that effective mitigation strategies are architecture-dependent rather than universal.
Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to machine translation (MT) for extremely low-resource languages by incorporating linguistic resources through in-context learning. However, LLMs often struggle to apply grammatical information effectively during translation. Inspired by recent progress in chain-of-thought reasoning, we investigate whether low-resource MT can benefit from structured intermediate steps of linguistic analysis and grammatical reasoning. We propose a pipeline for automatically generating step-by-step linguistic reasoning traces from Universal Dependencies treebanks, dictionaries, and grammar-rule banks. We evaluate these traces in three settings: in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), on Xibe and Chintang as test cases. Our results show that linguistic reasoning traces are most effective as inference-time guidance: in ICL, reliable sentence-specific traces substantially improve translation performance across most models, languages, and metrics. In contrast, using the linguistic reasoning traces as training data yields smaller and less consistent gains, as models learn the trace format but often generate erroneous content. These findings suggest that LLMs can leverage grammatical information for low-resource MT when given reliable linguistic analyses, while learning to generate such analyses remains a major bottleneck.
Renhao Pei, Yihong Liu, Sampo Pyysalo +2
ELLIS Institute Finland · University of Turku · Center for Information and Language Processing, LMU Munich +1