This paper describes the University of Florida Gators submission to the WMT26 Low-Resource Indic Language Translation shared task. We adapt the retrieval-augmented many-shot translation pipeline from our AmericasNLP 2026 system to translate between English and eleven North-Eastern Indian languages in both directions. At inference time, BM25 retrieves the most similar parallel examples from a language-specific training bank, and Gemini 2.5 Flash translates the input conditioned on these examples. No model fine-tuning is involved. Training banks combine official WMT26 data with publicly available corpora such as Samanantar and prior WMT shared task releases. A grid search over retrieval count r and development exemplar count d across all 22 language-direction pairs selects the best configuration for each submission.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the gators pipeline.
Cat.
Language
ISO
Train
Aug.
Pairs
1
Assamese
As
52,440
3.3 ×
171,794
Mizo
Lus
49,293
1.0 ×
50,620
Khasi
Kha
25,495
0.9 ×
22,847
Manipuri
Mni
22,539
1.0 ×
22,544
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
16,312
1.0 ×
16,312 †
Nyishi
Njz
49,613
1.0 ×
49,793
Table 1: Sizes of the in-domain training data before and after augmentation. The primary system uses the Train data, while the contrastive system uses the Pairs data. The augmentation ratio is computed as the number of augmented sentence pairs divided by the number of base pairs. † Pairs recalculated from Train . They are equal because we use no external data for Mni_Mtei.
Cat.
Language
ISO
∣D∣
1
Assamese
As
500
Mizo
Lus
500
Khasi
Kha
500
Manipuri
Mni
500
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
500
Nyishi
Njz
500
Table 2: ∣D∣ for each language in the shared task. Note that ∣D∣=500 except for some Cat. 2 languagues.
Invariant
dev En → X
dev X → En
Cat.
Language
ISO
Aug.
Pairs
r
d
ChrF
ChrF++
r
d
ChrF
ChrF++
1
Assamese
As
3.3 ×
171,794
80
10
52.95
49.81
40
49
68.80
67.98
Mizo
Lus
1.0 ×
50,620
80
20
53.40
51.90
40
20
63.53
62.53
Khasi
Kha
0.9 ×
22,847
80
49
56.44
55.71
80
49
75.64
75.09
Manipuri
Mni
1.0 ×
22,544
80
49
66.72
62.34
20
49
69.97
67.86
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
1.0 ×
16,312
80
10
41.22
36.86
40
10
55.20
52.85
Table 3: Development contrastive submission results for each combination of language and translation direction. Two optimal r,d pairs are selected for each language from our search grid, one per translation direction. Augmentation (Aug.) gives a rough multiplier on the original size of the development set that our contrastive data augmentation provides. Pairs is the total number of contrastive retrieval exemplars ∣R∣ after augmentation.
Invariant
test En → X
test X → En
Cat.
Language
ISO
Aug.
Pairs
r
d
BLEU
ChrF++
r
d
BLEU
ChrF++
1
Assamese
As
3.3 ×
171,794
80
10
20.77
52.81
40
49
27.27
57.35
Mizo
Lus
1.0 ×
50,620
80
20
21.60
50.69
40
20
33.28
63.36
Khasi
Kha
0.9 ×
22,847
80
49
29.14
53.16
80
49
25.76
52.92
Manipuri
Mni
1.0 ×
22,544
80
49
8.15
39.89
20
49
45.93
72.37
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
1.0 ×
16,312
80
10
16.62
52.85
40
10
38.13
66.16
Table 4: Test contrastive submission results for each combination language and translation direction Pakray et al. (28–29) . Two optimal r,d pairs are selected for each language from our search grid, one per translation direction. Augmentation Ratio (Aug.) gives a rough multiplier on the original size of the development set that our contrastive data augmentation provides. Pairs is the total number of contrastive retrieval exemplars ∣R∣ after augmentation. Entries in bold indicate that our submission performs best in the shared task for that metric.
Figure 2: Dev-to-test performance changes in the contrastive system. Left: En → X translation performance for dev ( blue ) and test ( orange ) data. Right: X → En translation performance for dev ( blue ) and test ( orange ) data.
Invariant
En → X
X → En
Cat.
Language
ISO
Aug.
Pairs
r
d
ChrF++
r
d
ChrF++
1
Assamese
As
3.3 ×
171,794
80
20
49.78
80
49
79.00
Mizo
Lus
1.0 ×
50,620
80
49
52.54
40
49
77.90
Khasi
Kha
0.9 ×
22,847
80
49
55.23
40
49
82.81
Manipuri
Mni
1.0 ×
22,544
80
20
62.96
0
49
88.88
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
1.0 ×
16,312
80
49
36.39
20
49
55.08
Table 5: Results of repeating our r,d grid search on near-duplicate-filtered WMT26 data. Augmentation (Aug.) gives a rough multiplier on the original size of the development set that our contrastive data augmentation provides. Pairs is the total number of contrastive retrieval exemplars ∣R∣ after augmentation. Unchanged optimal r,d configurations in italics .
Language
En → X
X → En
Lang.
ISO
URL
Considerations
URL
Considerations
Assamese
As
URL
Agglutinative Postpositions Bengali-Assamese Script Honorifics Match Example Register Match Example Style No Addtl. En, Expl., Parens Output Only Single Line of As SOV Word Order Unicode NFC Encoding Unique Assamese Characters
URL
Agglutinative Bengali-Assamese Script Match Register of Examples No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En SOV Word Order
Mizo
Lus
URL
Latin Script Match Example Register Match Example Style No Addtl. Explanations Output Only Single Line of Lus Output Std. Lus Orthography SOV Word Order Tonal w/o Changes in Script Tibeto Burman Family Verb-Final Agglutination
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En
Khasi
Khasi
URL
Austroasiatic Family Different Typology Gendered Prefix Agreement Latin Diacritics No Addtl. Explanations Output Only Single Line of Kha Polysynthetic Morph. Preserve Diacritics VOS Word Order
URL
Gendered Prefix Agreement No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En Polysynthetic Morph. VOS Word Order
Manipuri
Mni
URL
Bengali Script Complex Verb Agglutination Match Example Style NFC Unicode Encoding No Addtl. Explanations No Bengali Output Only Single Line of Mni SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family Unicode NFC Norm.
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En
Meitei
Mni_Mtei
URL
Agglutinative Match Example Script Match Example Style Meitei Mayek Script No Addtl. Explanations No Bengali Script No Devanagari Script Output Only Single Line of Mtei SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En
Table 6: We describe the prompting strategies we utilize for each Category 1 language in this table. Links in this table direct the reader to each prompt where it lives in our public Github repository.
Language
En → X
X → En
Lang.
ISO
URL
Considerations
URL
Considerations
Bodo
Bodo
URL
Agglutinative Morph. Devanagari Script Examples Define Bodo Follow Examples Carefully Grammar Different From Hindi No Addtl. Explanations No Hindi, Sanskrit, or Marathi Not Indo-Aryan Family Output Only Single Line of Bodo SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family Unicode NFC Normalization
URL
Devanagari Script No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En Tibeto-Burman Family
Kokborok
Trp
URL
Agglutinative Morph. Follow Examples Closely Latin Script Match Example Orthography Match Example Script No Addtl. Explanations Output Only Single Line of Trp SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family Very LoRes
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En
Karbi
Mjw
URL
Agglutinative Extremely LoRes Latin Script Match Example Orthography No Addtl. Explanation Output Only Single Line of Mjw SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family Tonal
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only Single Line of En
Nagamese
Nag
URL
En and As/Bengali Vocabulary En-Based Creole Fewer Inflections than En Srcs Latin Script Match Example Orthography No Addtl. Explanations No En No SOV Word Order Output Only Nag Creole Output Single Line of Nag Simplified Morphology Simplified En-Based Phonology SVO Word Order
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Normalize Nag Form to Std. En Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Single Line of Std. En Output Std. En Only
Tagin
Tgj
URL
Agglutinative Extremely LoRes Latin Script Match Example Orthography Njz Relation No Addtl. Explanations Output Only Single Line of Tgj Shared Njz Vocab. SOV Word Order Tibeto-Burman Family
URL
No Addtl. Explanations Output Fluent En Output Natural En Output Only En Output Single Line of En
Table 7: We describe the prompting strategies we utilize for each Category 2 language in this table. Links in this table direct the reader to each prompt where it lives in our public Github repository.
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
In-context learning (ICL) allows large language models (LLMs) to adapt to new tasks from a few examples, making it promising for languages underrepresented in pre-training. Recent work on many-shot ICL suggests that modern LLMs can further benefit from larger ICL examples enabled by their long context windows. However, such gains depend on careful example selection, and the inference cost can be prohibitive for low-resource language communities. In this paper, we present an empirical study of many-shot ICL for machine translation from English into ten truly low-resource languages recently added to FLORES+. We analyze the effects of retrieving more informative examples, using out-of-domain data, and ordering examples by length. Our findings show that many-shot ICL becomes more effective as the number of examples increases. More importantly, we show that BM25-based retrieval substantially improves data efficiency: 50 retrieved examples roughly match 250 many-shot examples, while 250 retrieved examples perform similarly to 1,000 many-shot examples. We further show that ICL provides additional gains on top of fine-tuning.
Yinhan Lu, Gaganpreet Jhajj, Chen Zhang +2
Mila – Quebec AI Institute · McGill University · Athabasca University +2
We present North Small Translate, an open-weight, LLM-based machine translation (MT) model with instruction-following capabilities built on the same foundation as Cohere's Command A Plus, a mixture-of-experts architecture with 25 billion active parameters out of 218 billion total parameters. North Small Translate is trained using difficulty sampling to obtain challenging documents and a five-step training protocol combining supervised fine-tuning, direct preference optimization, and online reinforcement learning. We prioritized throughput through a non-reasoning base model and supplemented with optional agentic capabilities to unlock translation quality gains. North Small Translate is trained to perform MT-related tasks, including post-editing and quality estimation, as well as related tasks such as general instruction following. The model achieves top MT performance across 50 languages in the class of models under 1T parameters, with no need to run expensive reasoning at inference time.
We present a study on low-resource machine translation for the Tangkhul-English (nmf-en) language pair. Tangkhul is a severely under-resourced Tibeto-Burman language spoken primarily in Manipur, India, with virtually no prior natural language processing infrastructure. We describe two systems: (1) a primary system based on ByT5-large fine-tuned on 38,336 Tangkhul-English parallel sentence pairs, and (2) a contrastive system based on mT5-small fine-tuned on the same corpus. Our primary ByT5-large system achieves a corpus BLEU score of 39.97, chrF++ of 58.07, BERTScore F1 of 0.8104, and COMET (wmt22-comet-da) of 0.7302 on a held-out test set of 3,856 sentences. We further discuss the orthographic challenges specific to Tangkhul's Latin-script diacritics, the domain bias of our training corpus (which comprises biblical text, stories, and conversational data), and avenues for future improvement through data diversification and domain adaptation.