Adapting a pretrained machine translation (MT) model to new terminology usually requires new parallel data and another round of fine-tuning, which is costly for low-resource languages. We ask whether controllability can be added to MT, and the fine-tuning burden reduced, without degrading the pretrained model. GLOSS-MT looks up the source's noun phrases in an offline English-Twi dictionary, replaces every phrase found by its Twi translation in place, and fine-tunes a translation model once to translate these mixed inputs. We apply the same data and pipeline to NLLB-200 (600M, 1.3B, 3.3B), OPUS-MT en-tw and TranslateGemma 4B. On a document-level English-to-Asante Twi benchmark (84 documents, four domains), every fine-tune scores above its pretrained base in chrF2 (+2.85 to +5.48), and the three NLLB fine-tunes are the best open systems (50.12-50.80). A direct controllability test on human-translated Bible passages shows that the three fine-tunes tested write 79-97% of the dictionary terms, and that replacing every dictionary entry by a different term changes the output accordingly (70-97% of the new terms appear) with no retraining. We release the models, data and code.
Figures & tables
System
chrF2
BLEU
Finance
UDHR
Watchtower
Folktales
References
Gemini 3.8 Flash
54.64
17.25
52.50
56.44
69.28
40.33
Google Translate
51.26
15.67
48.06
52.30
67.15
37.54
NLLB-200 3.3B
base
47.74
14.15
45.25
52.05
56.89
36.76
Gloss-MT
50.80 (+3.06)
13.11
50.23
51.66
64.17
37.16
NLLB-200 1.3B
base
47.42
13.68
45.72
50.47
57.46
36.05
Gloss-MT
50.27 (+2.85)
12.82
49.41
51.51
63.66
36.51
Table 1: English → Asante Twi on the nsanku benchmark (84 documents; chrF2 per dataset; the mean is over the four datasets). Bold: better of base and Gloss-MT . Zero-shot, TranslateGemma does not produce Twi, so it has no base row. MADLAD-400 3B [ 9 ] , the remaining open baseline, scores 37.14.
Model
Adh.
Nat.
Swap
Leak
chrF2 d/n
Asante Twi Bible (human references)
Gloss-MT TranslateGemma
96.6
26.2
97.3
1.9
37.2 / 32.1
Gloss-MT NLLB 3.3B
94.4
38.4
95.2
2.2
41.2 / 40.9
Gloss-MT OPUS-MT
79.2
32.5
69.7
1.7
36.4 / 33.6
NLLB 3.3B base
66.0
33.9
72.0
2.8
38.9 / 39.6
OPUS-MT base
1.9
30.3
0.4
1.4
19.1 / 30.1
Table 2: Controllability (%). Adh.: inserted terms in the output; Nat.: the same terms without the dictionary; Swap: swapped-in terms in the output; Leak: original terms surviving the swap; chrF2 with / without the dictionary.
Machine translation develops computational methods for converting text, speech, and visual content between languages while preserving meaning and purpose.
Terminology-aware translation asks for more than a correct translation: the output must use the exact terms a glossary prescribes. The standard recipe, fine-tuning on glossary-annotated translation pairs, hides an inefficiency: for most examples the glossary prescribes exactly what the model would have produced anyway, so they teach nothing about following a glossary. We therefore keep only the examples where the model's own translation contradicts the glossary. In a controlled study at fixed data volume, this selection alone raises term accuracy from 78.7% to 89.9%. The filtered data, built by a two-way synthetic pipeline on open models, is part of the instruction-tuning mixture of our public release SalamandraTA-7b-instruct v3.0, which, used exactly as released and wrapped in a document-level inference pipeline, forms the BSC submission to the WMT26 Terminology Shared Task Track 1. At the official WMT26 evaluation, our system achieves 94.2% term success at 74.6 chrF++, with only two of the twenty-two submissions outperforming it on both metrics. On last year's benchmark, it also surpasses our GRPO-based system, despite being trained solely with ordinary supervised fine-tuning.
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.
Fine-tuning large language models on parallel data improves translation quality but can cause catastrophic forgetting. Mitigation methods are generally evaluated by retention on general benchmarks. We ask whether these findings transfer to machine translation (MT) fine-tuning and to MT-specific instruction following (MT-IF): instructions that modify a translation, such as formality, grammatical gender, and length control. We compare methods anchored to auxiliary data, to model outputs, and to the base model parameters, first in a screening study with Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, then on Llama 3.1 8B Instruct fine-tuned on bidirectional Arabic-English or Spanish-English data. Elastic Weight Consolidation preserves general capabilities best in both stages; on the 8B Spanish model the average score on general benchmarks drops 1.7 points versus 11.0 for standard fine-tuning, yet its scores for formality and grammatical gender control remain close to standard fine-tuning. Only data mixing with control-task examples preserves these controls, but its gains do not transfer to unseen prompts for the same task.
Niklas Scholz, David Thulke, Abdallah Nasir +3
AppTek GmbH, Aachen, Germany · Machine Learning and Human Language Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany · Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan