Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled a shift from sentence-level to document-to-document (Doc2Doc) machine translation, promising improved global coherence. However, document-to-document generation in a single pass frequently suffers from structural misalignment, manifesting as sentence omissions or hallucinations that violate the core requirement of source-target correspondence. To address this, we introduce Sentence Translation Alignment Rate (STAR), an auxiliary metric that explicitly quantifies sentence-level structural fidelity. Building on this, we propose STAR-masked Preference Optimization (StarPO), a framework that ranks document-level hypotheses by structural quality and utilizes a dynamic alignment mask to focus optimization on misaligned segments. Experimental results across news and literary domains demonstrate that StarPO significantly enhances translation quality and structural integrity. Notably, StarPO allows compact models to surpass the performance of massive proprietary systems like GPT-4o while maintaining superior token efficiency.
Figures & tables
\Block 2-1 System
Ideal
Structural Deviations
1-to-1
1-to-0
0-to-1
Other
\Block [l]1-5 Doc2Doc translation in a single pass
LLaMA-3.1-8B
92.59
2.08
1.17
4.16
Qwen-2.5-7B
95.35
1.91
1.31
1.43
Qwen-3-4B
94.72
0.72
0.33
4.23
Deepseek-R1
95.03
4.85
0.03
0.09
Table 1: Alignment distribution ( in % ) for Zh ⇒ En on News-Commentary, computed by Gemini-2.5-Flash.
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed framework. (a) Sentence Translation Alignment Rate (STAR): Source and target documents are segmented and aligned to compute STAR, defined as the ratio of strict 1-to-1 alignments. (b) Preference Data Generation: Translation candidates are sampled and ranked by their STAR scores. Pairs exhibiting a score disparity larger than τ are selected as chosen ( yw ) and rejected ( yl ) samples. (c) STAR-Masked Preference Optimization (StarPO): A sentence-level mask is applied to the CPO objective, excluding well-aligned (1-to-1) sentences to focus optimization exclusively on structurally problematic segments.
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ Zh
\Block [c]1-2 Ru ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 En ⇔ Es
\Block [l]2-1 Avg.
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-12 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
72.23
74.89
71.60
80.13
72.49
58.80
80.65
80.75
80.53
78.62
75.07
+ SFT
76.81
80.01
83.79
81.47
75.42
75.41
82.37
80.69
80.66
83.49
80.01
+ CPO
81.10
79.94
83.98
82.42
75.50
75.05
82.51
81.43
81.45
84.60
80.80
+ StarPO
81.55
80.11
84.05
82.50
76.33
77.08
82.53
81.71
82.03
84.91
81.28
Table 2: Performance in dCOMET score on the News-Commentary test set. Bold scores represent the global best performance and underlined scores represent the global second-best performance. Blue text background indicates that the improvement over the origin Base model achieves at least 85% accuracy with the human judgment Xu et al. (2024) ; Kocmi et al. (2024b) . Specifically, the improvement needs a minimin of ≥0.71 for wmt22-comet-da .
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ Zh
\Block [c]1-2 Ru ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 En ⇔ Es
\Block [l]2-1 Avg.
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-12 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
19.25
20.03
36.37
27.08
22.89
11.56
40.31
22.21
42.15
40.25
28.21
+ SFT
21.55
39.36
44.20
28.54
30.62
15.43
41.65
23.78
42.60
43.49
33.12
+ CPO
30.98
38.77
44.02
28.27
34.98
16.69
42.11
24.45
43.14
43.52
34.69
+ StarPO
32.88
40.20
44.36
28.77
35.90
17.94
42.45
25.72
43.99
43.68
35.59
Table 3: Performance in d-BLEU score on the News-Commentary test set. Unlike dCOMET, d-BLEU evaluates each document as a single continuous string without sentence alignment. Blue text background denotes a significant improvement over the Base model ( ≥3.35 BLEU).
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ De
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ Ru
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-7 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
53.66
64.33
52.31
66.36
60.28
62.04
+ SFT
62.70
65.42
67.96
73.33
75.27
72.75
+ CPO
63.01
68.70
69.04
73.95
75.22
72.92
+ StarPO
63.43
72.17
72.15
74.61
77.50
73.79
Table 4: Performance in dCOMET on Guofeng test set.
Method
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
\Block [l]1-3 Data Ranking Metrics
BLEU Ranking
76.55
79.71
COMET Ranking
81.01
79.78
COMETKiwi Ranking
80.56
79.73
Word-level Coverage
75.94
79.46
\Block [l]1-3 Online RL Strategies
Table 5: COMET scores comparison against alternative optimization strategies. Word-level Coverage is calculated via WSPAlign Wu et al. (2023) ; Wu et al. (2024c) at the aligned sentence-pair level.
\Block 2-1 Methods
\Block 1-2 Correlation ( ρ,↑ )
Strict 1 -to- 1
Relaxed N -to- M
\Block [l]1-3 Existing Alignment Methods
Align-then-Slide
0.3804
0.5168
SEGALE
0.4193
0.4760
\Block [l]1-3 Simple Metrics
Token Count Ratio
0.0218
0.0211
Table 6: Spearman correlation ( ρ ) between LLM-annotated alignment quality and various evaluation methods (including STAR variants, Align-then-Slide Guo et al. (2025c) , SEGALE Wang et al. (2025c) , and length-based metrics) under both strict 1 -to- 1 and relaxed N -to- M matching criteria.
Pattern
Pathological
Complex
1-to-1
Overall
%
COMET
%
COMET
%
COMET
COMET
Base
3.25
0.00
4.16
71.87
92.59
75.78
73.15
SFT
3.14
0.00
3.13
74.81
93.73
79.45
76.81
StarPO
2.09
0.00
2.12
81.52
95.79
83.33
81.55
Table 7: Fine-grained analysis on Zh ⇒ En.
Fluency ( ↑ )
Content ( ↓ )
Cohesion ( ↓ )
\Block [c]1-4 LLaMA-3.1-Instruct
Base
3.67
2.33
1.95
+ SFT
3.94
1.96
1.70
+ CPO
3.97
1.90
1.58
+ StarPO
3.99
1.40
1.27
\Block [c]1-4 Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct
Table 8: LLM-as-a-judge evaluation results. Higher is better ( ↑ ); lower is better ( ↓ ).
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Alignment score vs. Token Consumption. We compare our proposed StarPO against various baselines, including sentence-level systems, document-level baselines, and proprietary LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o, Deepseek-R1). Note that the x-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale ( 10n ).
Figure 3: Case study of structural alignment patterns. Green text indicates acceptable linguistic adaptations (e.g., merging for cohesion or splitting for clarity), while red text highlights genuine translation errors. These two scenarios must be carefully distinguished to avoid misjudging stylistic alignment as semantic loss.
Figure 4: Sentence Translation Alignment Rate (STAR) across varying input context lengths from Sent2Sent to more than 2048 tokens. The results are evaluated on Zh ⇒ En translation of the News Commentary dataset using LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct.
Figure 5: The prompt template used for the LLM-as-a-judge implementation of STAR. The final score is calculated strictly based on the ratio of 1-to-1 matches to total alignment units, serving as a high-precision reference for validating our automated metric.
τ
Zh ⇒ En
En ⇒ Zh
0.00
81.04
80.01
0.05
81.15
79.96
0.10
81.55
80.11
0.15
81.38
80.08
Appendix
Table 9: Effect of τ on Zh ⇔ En translations.
Dataset
#Document Train/Valid/Test
#Document for StarPO
Average Tokens
Max Tokens
De ⇒ En
8.4K/150/150
1,008
1,797
6,540
En ⇒ De
8.4K/150/150
734
1,066
4,065
Es ⇒ En
9.7K/150/150
3,325
1,643
6,293
En ⇒ Es
9.7K/150/150
3,937
1,071
4,146
Ru ⇒ En
7.3K/150/150
1,744
1,776
7,951
En ⇒ Ru
7.3K/150/150
1,491
1,079
5,557
Appendix
Table 10: Statistics of the News-Commentary dataset.
Dataset
#Document Train/Valid/Test
#Document for StarPO
Average Tokens
Max Tokens
Zh ⇒ En
22.0K/25/25
2.0K
1,853
12,961
En ⇒ Zh
22.0K/25/25
2.0K
1,624
10,956
Zh ⇒ De
6.0K/30/30
2.0K
1,927
7,962
De ⇒ Zh
6.0K/30/30
2.0K
2,392
9,909
Zh ⇒ Ru
6.0K/30/30
2.0K
1,991
6,134
Ru ⇒ Zh
6.0K/30/30
2.0K
2,470
7,514
Appendix
Table 11: Statistics of the Guofeng dataset.
Figure 6: The universal prompt template used for document-level translation. To ensure a fair comparison and eliminate prompt engineering variance, we apply this standardized Doc2Doc instruction across all experiments. ¡tgt_lang¿ represents the target language, and ¡src_doc¿ represents the source document, respectively.
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 De ⇔ Zh
\Block [c]1-2 Ru ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 En ⇔ Es
\Block [l]2-1 Avg.
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-12 LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
90.31 96.44
87.21 93.65
92.52 94.43
95.41 95.92
78.96 93.55
82.79 89.37
97.05 98.51
93.92 96.46
90.97 96.98
94.06 95.86
90.32 95.12
+ SFT
93.52 95.00
91.75 95.05
95.77 96.39
95.60 97.03
80.39 94.38
93.58 96.28
96.97 98.58
97.58 97.82
77.13 96.04
95.64 96.27
91.79 96.28
+ CPO
95.00 97.05
91.72 96.62
95.99 96.90
95.52 98.76
79.83 97.93
90.41 97.42
97.30 98.91
97.65 97.88
90.64 91.87
97.50 97.82
93.16 97.12
+StarPO
95.62 98.64
93.36 98.31
96.80 97.08
95.59 98.66
80.80 98.36
97.12 97.54
97.27 98.90
98.01 98.08
90.13 92.45
97.63 98.01
94.23 97.60
Appendix
Table 12: Performance in STAR scores on News-Commentary test set. In each cell, the top value is the Strict score and the bottom value (in gray) is the Relaxed score.
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ De
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ Ru
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-7 LLaMA-3.1-Instruct
Base
30.12 38.84
57.60 72.33
16.40 23.30
28.65 35.57
18.37 35.53
31.70 44.35
+ SFT
70.94 80.51
61.46 83.67
42.68 78.67
60.62 69.59
78.63 80.89
50.25 62.60
+ CPO
72.80 80.74
74.15 77.01
73.41 80.06
80.96 85.98
75.81 80.03
87.34 98.58
+ StarPO
74.29 82.37
76.84 83.05
75.97 79.39
84.39 88.32
80.34 85.40
87.94 97.39
Appendix
Table 13: STAR scores on Guofeng test set. In each cell, the top value is the Strict score and the bottom value (in gray) is the Relaxed score.
\Block 2-1 System
Ideal
Structural Deviations
1-to-1
1-to-0
0-to-1
Other
\Block [c]1-5 LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
92.59
2.08
1.17
4.16
+SFT
93.73
2.72
0.42
3.13
+CPO
95.42
0.33
0.75
3.50
+StarPO
95.79
1.95
0.14
2.12
Appendix
Table 14: Calculating STAR scores in Chinese ⇒ English language direction on News-Commentary test set by Gemini-2.5-Flash using prompts in Figure 5 .
\Block [l]2-1 System
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ En
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ De
\Block [c]1-2 Zh ⇔ Ru
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
⇒
⇐
\Block [c]1-7 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Base
8.36
16.56
4.41
6.13
13.57
12.68
+ SFT
9.41
17.45
14.83
15.55
19.78
14.09
+ CPO
11.25
19.19
17.24
16.13
21.67
18.45
+ StarPO
12.08
19.60
18.20
20.49
23.24
19.39
Appendix
Table 15: Performance in BLEU on Guofeng test set.
Method
COMET
COMETKiwi
DPO
36.86
22.61
DPO ( w. SFT loss)
80.69
75.60
SimPO
70.48
70.94
ORPO
80.23
74.94
KTO
80.30
75.04
CPO (Standard)
81.10
75.24
Appendix
Table 16: Comparison of different offline preference optimization algorithms.
Figure 7: Histograms of metric scores for STAR (Original) and STAR (Relaxed). The top plot displays the full distribution including perfect matches (score=100 % ) The bottom plot zooms in by excluding perfect matches, highlighting that STAR (Original) maintains a dense distribution of high-quality candidates, whereas STAR (Relaxed) has sparse coverage in the near-perfect region.
Figure 8: Frequency distribution of unmasked tokens. To provide a clear view of the token preservation statistics, the distribution is normalized
Figure 9: Analysis of training margins. The left panel compares the margins of Ours, DPO with SFT loss, standard DPO loss, and standard CPO loss. The right panel provides a zoomed-in view focusing on the comparison between standard CPO loss and Ours (indicated as “CPO Loss with Mask” in the legend).
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
In Machine Translation, Large Language Models (LLMs) have generally underperformed compared to conventional encoder-decoder systems and thus see limited adoption. However, LLMs excel at modeling contextual information, making them a natural fit for document-level translation tasks where coherence across sentences is crucial. Despite this potential, document-level MT with LLMs faces two key challenges: (1) the scarcity of large-scale, high-quality document-level parallel data; and (2) the propensity of LLMs to introduce hallucinations and omissions during generation. To address these challenges, we propose a two-stage fine-tuning strategy leveraging LLM-augmented document-level data. First, we augment data by converting summarization data into document-level parallel data using a LLM, and then filter it using multiple metrics, leveraging sacreBLEU, COMET, and LaBSE-based cosine similarity-to improve data quality. Finally, we employ a two-stage fine-tuning strategy: first fine-tuning on the abundant sentence-level MT resources, and then on the filtered document-level corpus.
Ireh Kim, Tesia Sker, Chanwoo Kim
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
Word alignment has traditionally been studied between sentences, but many cross-lingual tasks increasingly require correspondences across full documents. While recent multilingual embedding models can encode long inputs, we show that applying algorithms designed for sentences directly to documents leads to performance degradation. To address this, we introduce CTFAlign, a lightweight, training-free approach for document-level word alignment. CTFAlign applies a coarse-to-fine refinement strategy that restricts the alignment search space to semantically similar regions. Additionally, we introduce MDPAlign, a simpler alternative that constrains alignments by position with a main diagonal prior. Both approaches operate directly on full documents without relying on sentence segmentation or sentence alignment. We evaluate these methods across six language pairs varying in typological distance, resourcedness, and document length. Averaged over three models, CTFAlign reduces word alignment error rate from 0.412 to 0.326. These gains transfer downstream, leading to improvements in document-level translation coverage evaluation and recognition of semantic differences. We release CTFAlign as a Python package and make the code and data to reproduce our experiments publicly available.
Michelle Wastl, Jannis Vamvas, Rico Sennrich
Department of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich
Advanced large language models (LLMs) with long context windows can substantially reduce input truncation in document-level machine translation (DocMT). However, direct Doc2Doc translation remains prone to n-gram repetition and progressive quality degradation. A common remedy is to segment the document into finer-grained chunks. Nonetheless, conventional rule-based chunking approaches fail to handle the length distribution mismatch between training and inference. To address this, we introduce Fixed-Range Chunking (FRC), utilizing dynamic programming to partition documents into chunks within a predefined length interval. By consistently applying FRC during training and inference, the input documents of any length are mapped to the same length distribution, substantially reducing train-test length mismatch. Centered on FRC, we propose a lightweight dual-boundary matching algorithm for chunk alignment, alongside four distinct training strategies. Experimental results show that FRC-based fine-tuning substantially improves 7B LLMs over direct Doc2Doc fine-tuning and outperforms existing DocMT methods on IWSLT2017. We further construct GlobVDoc, a 10-language test set independent of mainstream DocMT training sources, and show that FRC improves out-of-distribution document translation.
Xiaotian Wang, Youyuan Lin, Zhan Shen +1
The University of Tokyo · Riken · Kyoto University +1