We present an ensemble-driven self-training framework for unsupervised neural machine translation (UNMT). Starting from a primary language pair, we train multiple UNMT models that share the same translation task but differ in an auxiliary language, inducing structured diversity across models. We then generate pseudo-translations for the primary pair using token-level ensemble decoding, averaging model predictions in both directions. These ensemble outputs are used as synthetic parallel data to further train each model, allowing the models to improve via shared supervision. At deployment time, we select a single model by validation performance, preserving single-model inference cost. Experiments show statistically significant improvements over single-model UNMT baselines, with mean gains of 1.7 chrF when translating from English and 0.67 chrF when translating into English.
Figures & tables
Model
Direction
Average Score
Llama-3.2-1B (Low-resource)
EN → PL
16.60
PL → EN
20.03
Qwen3-0.6B-Base (High-resource)
EN → FR
51.29
FR → EN
53.20
Qwen3-1.7B-Base (High-resource)
EN → FR
55.79
FR → EN
56.95
Table 1: Average chrF score of individual models for the main language pair, on 3000 sentences.
Figure 1: 100 sentences BLEU for Llama-3.2-1B : mean performance across all single models.
Model
Ensemble Size
Direction
Best Model Before +Single Training
Best Model After Ensemble Training
Llama-1B (low- resource)
3
EN → PL
18.93
21.44
PL → EN
22.80
23.47
6
EN → PL
18.93
21.01
PL → EN
22.80
23.79
10
EN → PL
18.93
21.99
PL → EN
22.80
24.25
Table 2: Best individual model chrF score.
Model Name
Ensemble Size
Direction
Best Model Before
Best Model After
Avg. Models Before
Avg. Models After
Ensemble Before
Ensemble After
Llama-3.2-1B
3
EN → PL
17.57 (cs)
21.44 (cs)
17.30
21.27
18.51
21.09
PL → EN
22.29 (bg)
23.47 (el)
20.62
23.36
20.41
23.54
6
EN → PL
17.56 (cs)
21.01 (cs)
16.97
20.86
16.77
20.45
PL → EN
22.17 (bg)
23.79 (cs)
19.79
23.56
20.35
23.55
10
EN → PL
17.70 (cs)
21.99 (bg)
16.60
21.45
17.18
20.97
PL → EN
22.35 (bg)
24.25 (sk)
20.03
23.85
20.53
23.91
Table 3: chrF score for the ensemble setting per model and ensemble size.
Figure 2: Llama-3.2-1B performance during ensemble training (10 models).
Figure 3: Qwen3-0.6B-Base performance during ensemble training (10 models).
Figure 4: Qwen3-1.7B-Base performance during ensemble training (10 models).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Version (3rd lang)
PL->EN
EN->PL
3rd->EN
EN->3rd
BG
5.55
0.98
3.39
2.26
CS
4.76
1.73
2.62
1.82
EL
4.03
1.11
1.11
0.80
ET
4.17
1.30
2.57
1.52
FI
4.00
1.26
1.07
0.47
HU
4.53
1.17
3.43
2.50
Appendix
Table 4: Final single-model Llama-3.2-1B 3000 sentence BLEU by direction (low-resource).
Version (3rd lang)
FR->EN
EN->FR
3rd->EN
EN->3rd
BG
26.17
22.13
29.99
20.90
CS
25.78
21.58
25.12
14.47
DA
25.67
21.39
21.88
15.61
LV
25.42
21.16
7.72
5.15
NL
25.45
21.62
20.13
14.76
PL
25.92
22.09
23.91
13.51
Appendix
Table 5: Final single-model Qwen3-0.6B 3000 sentence BLEU by direction (high-resource).
Version (3rd lang)
FR->EN
EN->FR
3rd->EN
EN->3rd
BG
30.29
26.62
41.31
31.47
CS
30.26
26.33
36.53
24.72
DA
29.74
26.06
29.45
21.95
DE
30.13
25.95
29.59
18.70
ES
30.08
26.27
32.32
30.57
LV
30.44
26.12
29.44
16.90
Appendix
Table 6: Final single-model Qwen3-1.7B 3000 sentence BLEU by direction (high-resource).
Figure 5: 100 sentences BLEU for Qwen3-0.6B-Base : mean performance across all single models.
Figure 6: 100 sentences BLEU for Qwen3-1.7B-Base : mean performance across all single models.
Table 13
Model Name
Ensemble Size
Direction
Best Model Before
Best Model After
Avg. Models Before
Avg. Models After
Ensemble Before
Ensemble After
Llama-3.2-1B
3
EN → PL
1.70 (cs)
4.38 (cs)
1.24
4.15
1.87
4.03
PL → EN
5.57 (bg)
6.24 (cs)
4.79
5.85
5.00
5.61
6
EN → PL
1.75 (cs)
4.23 (et)
1.24
4.19
1.55
4.17
PL → EN
5.51 (bg)
6.33 (hu)
4.50
6.23
5.07
6.26
10
EN → PL
1.73 (cs)
4.54 (et)
1.22
4.36
1.69
4.36
PL → EN
5.61 (bg)
6.70 (hu)
4.69
6.46
4.87
6.53
Appendix
Table 9: BLEU score for the ensemble setting per model and ensemble size.
Model Name
Ensemble Size
Direction
Best Model Before
Best Model After
Avg. Models Before
Avg. Models After
Ensemble Before
Ensemble After
Llama-3.2-1B
3
EN → PL
0.1806 (cs)
0.2206 (cs)
0.1707
0.2196
0.1831
0.2218
PL → EN
0.1937 (bg)
0.1982 (cs)
0.1779
0.1939
0.1788
0.1943
6
EN → PL
0.1812 (cs)
0.2151 (el)
0.1647
0.2097
0.1747
0.2098
PL → EN
0.1924 (bg)
0.2078 (cs)
0.1697
0.2034
0.1819
0.2021
10
EN → PL
0.1815 (cs)
0.2376 (hu)
0.1617
0.2280
0.1759
0.2257
PL → EN
0.1926 (bg)
0.2092 (et)
0.1723
0.2005
0.1801
0.1988
Appendix
Table 10: COMET score for the ensemble setting per model and ensemble size.
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
Contemporary neural machine translation (NMT) systems are almost exclusively built by training on supervised parallel data. Despite the tremendous progress achieved, these systems still exhibit persistent translation errors. This paper proposes that a post-training paradigm based on reinforcement learning (RL) can effectively rectify such mistakes. We introduce a novel framework that requires only a general text corpus and an expert translator which can be either human or an AI system to provide iterative feedback. In our experiments, we focus specifically on English-to-German translation as a representative high-resource language pair. Crucially, we implement this RL-based post-training using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Applying our DPO-driven framework to the gemma3-1b model yields a significant improvement in translation quality, elevating it's COMET score from 0.703 to 0.747 on the English to German task. The results demonstrate that DPO offers an efficient and stable pathway for enhancing pre-trained NMT models through preference-based post-training.
High-quality machine translation (MT) can scale to hundreds of languages, setting a high bar for multilingual systems. However, compared to the world's 7,000 languages, current systems still offer only limited coverage: about 200 languages on the target side, and maybe a few hundreds more on the source side, supported due to cross-lingual transfer. And even these numbers have been hard to evaluate due to the lack of reliable benchmarks and metrics. We present Omnilingual Machine Translation (OMT), the first MT system supporting more than 1,600 languages. This scale is enabled by a comprehensive data strategy that integrates large public multilingual corpora with newly created datasets, including manually curated MeDLEY bitext. We explore two ways of specializing a Large Language model (LLM) for machine translation: as a decoder-only model (OMT-LLaMA) or as a module in an encoder-decoder architecture (OMT-NLLB). Notably, all our 1B to 8B parameter models match or exceed the MT performance of a 70B LLM baseline, revealing a clear specialization advantage and enabling strong translation quality in low-compute settings. Moreover, our evaluation of English-to-1,600 translations further shows that while baseline models can interpret undersupported languages, they frequently fail to generate them with meaningful fidelity; OMT-LLaMA models substantially expand the set of languages for which coherent generation is feasible. Additionally, OMT models improve in cross-lingual transfer, being close to solving the "understanding" part of the puzzle in MT for the 1,600 evaluated. Our leaderboard and main human-created evaluation datasets (BOUQuET and Met-BOUQuET) are dynamically evolving towards Omnilinguality and freely available.
Latent-reasoning looped language models (LoopLMs) offer a different scaling path for machine translation (MT): instead of increasing parameter count or emitting explicit chain-of-thought tokens, they spend additional recurrent computation inside hidden states. We introduce LatentMT, the first systematic study of latent-reasoning LoopLMs for machine translation. LatentMT adapts a small 2.6B-parameter backbone model with lightweight training. Across 32 translation directions spanning high-, mid-, and low-resource languages, LatentMT achieves performance comparable to models three to five times larger. It is competitive in a high-resource language and achieves state-of-the-art performance on both mid-resource and low-resource languages. Studying the behavior of scaling the number of recurrent reasoning steps, we find that recurrent computation consistently improves translation quality in early steps, then saturates quickly afterwards. Our mechanistic analysis shows that hidden-representation differences shrink along the recurrent reasoning-step axis, supporting the observed saturation in performance. Finally, our efficiency analysis shows that LatentMT requires lower training and inference compute than much larger non-latent-reasoning models with similar performance, making latent recurrent computation a promising path toward compact, efficient, and strong machine translation.
Wei-Rui Chen, Samar M. Magdy, Chiyu Zhang +3
The University of British Columbia · Arizona State University · Rice University +1