Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trained to perform chain-of-thoughts reasoning in order to improve the reliability of their responses. In this work, we investigate how explicit reasoning can be leveraged for LLM-Based Machine Translation (MT) with in-context samples. We introduce a novel fragment-based reasoning framework in which the model first extracts parallel source-target fragments from retrieved similar exemplars, and uses these fragments as intermediate reasoning traces to produce the final translation. To train our model, we distill silver fragments and drafts from a large teacher model. Our experiments with the Qwen3 model family, over 6 languages, including up to 5 domains per language, demonstrate that fragment-based MT significantly outperforms alternative methods like standard k-shot or basic drafting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the training pipeline of the model: (1) exemplars are retrieved from the TM; (2) A teacher model performs FE from the exemplars; (3) A student model is trained to reproduce FE as a reasoning trace.
Figure 2: Illustration of the fragment extraction (FE) step, with k=1 exemplar. Extracted fragments are colored while generated parts are grayed.
BLEU ↑
COMET ↑
MetricX ↓
Model
think
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
(I)
✗
28.6
33.0
35.6
36.0
82.3
79.9
81.9
82.1
7.43
2.15
2.12
2.10
(B)
✗
38.3
45.3
46.0
46.3
85.3
86.3
86.4
86.5
2.27
2.11
2.09
2.07
(D)
✗
36.7
44.7
45.5
45.8
85.0
86.1
86.2
86.4
2.36
2.16
2.13
2.11
(D)
✓
36.8
44.1
45.0
46.0
84.9
85.0
85.6
85.6
2.34
2.66
2.43
2.11
(F)
✗
37.4
44.8
45.5
45.9
85.1
86.2
86.3
86.4
2.33
2.13
2.11
2.09
Table 1: Average BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test set for the different models and number of examples k . Note that fine-tuned models can be run with or without reasoning. Results significantly better (p<1%) than the baseline (B) are in bold . The significance is assessed with a paired t-test for COMET and MetricX , and with bootstrapping for BLEU with SacreBLEU (n=1000).
k=
0
1
2
3
BLEU
8/16
12/16
14/16
14/16
COMET
14/16
14/16
14/16
14/16
MetricX
6/16
13/16
15/16
14/16
Table 2: Win rates of (F) (with thinking on) against (B) using BLEU , COMET , and MetricX across 16 domains.
BLEU ↑
COMET ↑
MetricX ↓
Model
think
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
(I)
✗
44.6
55.7
56.9
57.4
85.6
84.3
85.8
85.7
1.68
2.21
2.01
2.07
(B)
✗
45.9
64.4
65.2
65.4
86.0
89.4
89.8
89.8
1.65
1.27
1.22
1.20
(D)
✗
44.9
64.5
65.5
65.8
85.8
89.2
89.8
89.9
1.74
1.31
1.26
1.26
(D)
✓
46.2
63.6
65.8
66.1
86.1
86.4
89.7
89.9
1.68
1.89
1.26
1.24
(F)
✗
45.5
63.7
64.4
65.1
86.3
89.2
89.7
89.9
1.67
1.30
1.25
1.23
Table 3: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the GNOME domain, for several models and number of exemplars k . Results significantly better (p<5%) than the baseline (B) are in bold . The significance is assessed with a paired t-test for COMET and MetricX , and with bootstrapping for BLEU (using SacreBLEU, n=1000 ).
fragments
Prec.
Rec.
BLEU
silver
98.5
81.1
77.1
(F)
99.7
89.2
80.8
(F+D)
99.7
89.1
80.8
Table 4: Assessing the faithfulness of the source fragments w.r.t. the source sentence.
BLEU ↑
COMET ↑
MetricX ↓
Model
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=0
k=1
k=2
k=3
(D)
+2.2
+1.2
+0.7
0.0
+0.2
+1.0
+0.5
+0.5
-0.2
-0.6
-0.4
0.0
(F)
+1.1
+0.3
+0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.4
-0.4
0.0
0.0
+0.1
+0.1
(F+D)
+1.3
+0.1
0.0
+0.1
+0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 5: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores average gains on the multi-domain test set when prefixing the silver drafts and/or fragments instead of having them be inferred during reasoning.
Figure 3: Differences in COMET score gain between (F) and (B) w.r.t the coverage of the reference sentence.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
domain
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
en-xx pair
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
size
46K
1.0M
111K
480K
93K
177K
140K
242K
1.9M
475K
538K
223K
18K
467K
248K
500K
Appendix
Table 6: List of domains with the size of the full available training datasets.
Figure 4: FE prompt used to generate the silver fragments an the draft with Qwen3-32B . Thinking is disabled.
Figure 5: Prompt used to train the baseline model (B) . The thinking process is empty, as the model is only trained to generate a translation.
Figure 6: Prompt used to train the draft model (D) .
Figure 7: Prompt used to train the fragments model (F) .
Figure 8: Prompt used to train the draft+fragments model (F+D) .
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
think
k
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
BLEU ↑
✗
0
21.2
27.2
28.2
35.3
22.1
18.7
40.0
39.5
32.8
38.9
33.4
30.0
33.0
26.1
9.8
20.9
✗
1
32.2
40.9
25.6
43.0
25.1
17.7
48.4
48.4
27.8
49.1
34.6
29.0
37.8
36.9
13.4
18.0
✗
2
35.0
43.4
29.0
46.9
26.5
18.6
52.7
51.3
31.5
52.2
36.8
32.0
40.4
40.6
14.5
19.0
✗
3
35.5
43.2
28.7
46.8
27.7
18.7
53.4
51.1
31.6
52.7
37.9
32.5
40.3
41.0
15.1
19.2
Appendix
Table 7: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test sets for the pre-trained Qwen3-8B Instruct model (I) .
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
think
k
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
BLEU ↑
✗
0
40.8
44.5
36.5
50.4
37.6
21.4
51.3
49.0
36.1
52.2
40.3
34.5
39.4
37.0
19.4
23.1
✗
1
48.3
54.7
38.0
60.7
42.9
21.7
63.6
64.0
36.6
65.8
43.4
41.1
47.2
53.6
22.2
20.9
✗
2
48.8
55.2
38.2
61.3
43.3
21.6
64.8
64.9
37.0
67.1
43.7
41.7
47.8
54.3
23.3
23.5
✗
3
49.0
55.5
38.6
61.9
43.4
21.7
65.2
65.2
36.9
67.5
43.9
42.2
47.8
54.8
24.0
23.6
Appendix
Table 8: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test sets for the fine-tuned Qwen3-8B baseline model (B) .
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
think
k
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
BLEU ↑
✗
0
36.3
40.5
34.6
48.0
34.8
21.2
49.6
47.5
35.7
50.5
39.4
33.9
39.2
36.4
17.6
21.1
✗
1
46.3
53.2
36.9
59.4
40.9
21.8
63.3
63.6
36.2
64.8
43.5
41.1
47.6
52.7
20.6
23.7
✗
2
47.0
54.0
37.5
60.3
41.3
21.6
64.7
64.7
36.3
66.7
44.0
41.6
48.1
54.2
21.6
24.0
✗
3
47.5
54.5
37.8
60.7
41.5
21.8
65.1
64.9
36.6
67.1
44.2
41.7
48.4
54.6
22.7
24.3
Appendix
Table 9: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test sets for the fine-tuned Qwen3-8B drafting model (D) .
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
think
k
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
BLEU ↑
✗
0
38.0
42.5
35.4
49.1
36.5
21.5
50.8
47.9
35.8
51.4
36.5
33.8
39.0
37.3
18.9
23.2
✗
1
46.5
53.9
37.3
59.5
41.7
21.6
63.1
63.5
36.2
65.0
43.4
40.8
47.0
52.7
21.8
23.3
✗
2
47.4
54.7
37.7
60.7
42.3
21.6
64.3
64.2
36.2
66.6
43.9
41.3
47.9
54.1
22.5
23.4
✗
3
48.1
55.1
38.0
61.2
42.3
21.5
64.9
64.7
36.2
66.9
44.2
41.7
48.0
54.8
23.4
23.5
Appendix
Table 10: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test sets for the fine-tuned Qwen3-8B fragment-based model (F) .
ECB
JRC
Wiki
JRC
KDE
TED
ECB
EMEA
Epp
JRC
Wiki
KDE
EMEA
JRC
Kor
Sub
think
k
pl
pl
pl
es
uk
uk
fr
fr
fr
fr
fr
de
de
de
de
de
BLEU ↑
✗
0
37.9
41.8
35.1
49.0
35.9
21.1
50.2
49.0
35.5
51.2
41.2
33.9
39.2
37.0
18.6
23.2
✗
1
46.4
53.7
37.1
59.6
41.3
21.3
63.1
63.0
35.9
64.3
43.5
41.3
46.7
52.4
21.7
23.4
✗
2
47.4
54.5
37.4
60.6
42.0
21.3
64.2
64.3
36.1
66.3
43.8
41.6
47.7
53.9
22.7
23.7
✗
3
47.8
55.0
37.8
61.1
42.0
21.4
64.8
64.5
36.1
66.7
43.9
41.6
48.1
54.3
23.3
23.6
Appendix
Table 11: BLEU , COMET , and MetricX scores on the multi-domain test sets for the fine-tuned Qwen3-8B fragment-based drafting model (F+D) .
Figure 9: Illustration of the traceability provided by the FE step.
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
Reasoning-oriented large language models (RLMs) achieve strong gains on tasks such as mathematics and coding by generating explicit intermediate reasoning. However, their impact on machine translation (MT) remains underexplored. We systematically evaluate several open- and closed-weights RLMs on the WMT24++ benchmark and find that enabling explicit reasoning consistently degrades translation quality across languages and models. Analysis reveals that MT reasoning traces are highly linear, lacking revision, self-correction and exploration of alternative translations, which limits their usefulness. Furthermore, injecting higher-quality reasoning traces from stronger models does not reliably improve weaker models' performance. To address this mismatch, we propose a structured reasoning framework tailored to translation, based on multi-step drafting, adequacy refinement, fluency improvement, and selective iterative revision. We curate a synthetic dataset of dynamic structured reasoning traces and post-train a large reasoning model on this data. Experiments show significant improvements over standard translation fine-tuning and injected generic reasoning baselines. Our findings demonstrate that reasoning must be task-structured to benefit MT.
Sara Rajaee, Sebastian Vincent, Alexandre Berard +3
Large Reasoning Models increasingly use intermediate traces for machine translation, but it remains unclear when such reasoning helps or hurts. We analyze reasoning traces across models, languages, domains, and datasets, focusing on reasoning language, length, and structure. We find that the best reasoning language is model-specific, reasoning length has a non-monotonic relationship with quality, and traces exhibit recurring functional patterns. To uncover these patterns, we introduce Hierarchical Meta-Summarization (HMS), a scalable framework that induces coarse- and fine-grained reasoning structures without predefined taxonomies. HMS reveals a shared organization--understanding/planning, translating/drafting, and refining/verifying--alongside domain-specific variation. Our results suggest that MT reasoning should be controlled in a model-aware, length-aware, and pattern-aware manner rather than uniformly encouraged.
Yuxiang Liu, Jiaming Luo, Eleftheria Briakou +1
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · Google DeepMind
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