Building on our previous work, this paper develops practical, low-barrier methods for freelance translators and smaller language service providers to evaluate translation technologies using rigorous yet accessible analytic methods. Here we address a high-stakes, specialized need: offline translation for confidentiality-sensitive domains in which privacy constraints preclude the use of cloud-based engines and commercial LLMs. We expand the Reeve Foundation Trilingual Corpus (RFTC) used in our previous work into a multilingual corpus (RFMC) by adding sentence-aligned German and Simplified Chinese reference translations. We then benchmark several locally runnable language models (via Ollama) across four language directions on 1000+ sentences selected from this corpus. We use consistent single-prompt calls without fine-tuning or domain adaptation, comparing local LLM outputs against commercial NMTs (DeepL, Baidu), a frontier LLM (GPT-5.2), and professional-grade local NMT systems (OPUS-CAT, NeuralDesktop, Promt). Automatic evaluation is conducted with MATEO. Results reveal substantial variation in local LLM performance across language directions and model sizes. The best local LLMs match or surpass local NMT systems and a frontier LLM, though they remain behind top commercial NMTs. These findings underscore the viability of carefully selected local LLM translation for privacy-constrained professionals and inform future research on model scaling and multilingual capability.
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.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as general-purpose translation systems, but their behavior is usually evaluated under a single prompt shape: translate one source sentence into one target language. In practice, users may ask for one target language, for several related languages at once, or for translations conditioned on examples. This paper studies prompt scope and demonstration selection as experimental variables for local LLM machine translation. We evaluate English-to-Romance and English-to-Germanic translation on the full FLORES devtest split for nine official European Union languages. We compare three local instruction-tuned LLMs, llama3.2:3b, mistral:latest, and qwen2.5:14b, against dedicated MT baselines from OPUS-MT and NLLB-200. We test zero-shot prompting and k=5 few-shot prompting with random, lexical-similarity, and embedding-similarity demonstration selection. We also compare single-target prompts with JSON-formatted family-scope prompts that request all languages in a family at once. Results show that dedicated MT systems remain strongest overall, especially for Germanic languages. Few-shot prompting helps mistral:latest and qwen2.5:14b, but hurts llama3.2:3b; embedding retrieval is best on average for the stronger LLMs, but its advantage over random and lexical examples is modest. Family-scope prompting is feasible for stronger local LLMs but exposes structured-output failures in smaller models. These findings motivate evaluating LLM translation not only by language pair and metric, but also by prompt scope, retrieval strategy, and multi-target compliance.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for machine translation, yet their outputs often contain additional text beyond the translation itself, such as language labels, explanations or bilingual repetitions, which we term translation noise. Despite its prevalence, this problem lacks dedicated benchmarks and systematic study. We analyze over 790,000 translation outputs from 12 LLMs across 22 language pairs (LPs) and identify 12 recurring noise patterns, which we group into formatting and content noise. Building on the observed patterns, we construct TransClean, a controlled benchmark of 9,900 pairs of noisy and clean translation outputs, comprising 8,800 synthetically generated instances and 1,100 manually curated authentic instances. We evaluate two extraction approaches on the TransClean benchmark: 1) a span-based extraction method leveraging translation quality estimation models for span detection, and 2) an LLM-based extraction method that prompts an LLM to isolate the translation. Our benchmark and analysis provide the first systematic framework to evaluate and improve the cleanliness of LLM translation outputs.