While mining parallel sentences from web pages has proven effective for low-resource machine translation, the majority of the world's languages have little to no web presence. What they do have, though, are resources that are the result of centuries of efforts by linguists, such as grammars, dictionaries, and other documentation materials. We propose extracting translation examples from such linguistic resources, which offer parallel data for languages under-represented online and could potentially scale to thousands more languages. We develop a pipeline to achieve this, leveraging an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) model as well as a vision language model (VLM), to ensure identified content to be aligned with visual layout information. We demonstrate the utility of the extracted bitexts for bootstrapping translation systems across 20 languages, both by training machine translation models and by applying in-context learning for large language models. For in-context learning, we observe improvements of +15.78 and +6.94 chrF2++ over zero-shot translation for into low- and high-resource languages, respectively.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We illustrate the rough relationship between mined bitext size and MT performance, using nllb-200-3.3B as an example. Archival linguistic resources could extend bitext coverage from around 200 languages to thousands more, while substantially improving few-shot translation quality toward NLLB-level performance.
Figure 2: Examples of incidental bitext in a Kalamang book Visser (2016) . Blue boxes indicate Kalamang sentences, and green boxes indicate English sentences.
LRL name
LRL code
HRL
NLLB support
Existing data
Data source
Script
Arapaho
arp
eng
No
SIGMORPHON 2023
Latin
Chuvash
chv
eng
No
FLORES, BOUQuET
Cyrillic
Tsez
ddo
eng
No
SIGMORPHON 2023
Latin
Dogri
dgo
eng
No
FLORES, BOUQuET
Devanagari
Gitxsan
git
eng
No
SIGMORPHON 2023
Latin
Table 1: Summary of languages and their resource status, separated by NLLB support. Kimbundu is paired with Portuguese, for which our collection contains substantially more books, while Uspanteco is paired with Spanish to match its available test set. BOUQuET is only used as a secondary evaluation set where available.
Model
CER (%) ↓
PaddleOCR-VL
34.13
HunyuanOCR
11.37
dots.ocr
7.88
dots.ocr with retry
5.66
Table 2: CER for three OCR models on the synthesized FLORES PDFs.
Lang
BLASER 2.0-QE ↑
Extracted
Test / FLORES
dik
2.935
3.281
gug
3.375
3.732
ilo
3.356
4.274
kac
3.129
3.570
kea
3.293
3.965
Table 3: QE scores for supported languages on extracted and FLORES bitexts. Bold indicates better performance. FLORES bitexts are of higher quality.
Lang
#Extracted
Existing Datasets
#Train
#Dev
#Test
Without NLLB support
arp
1,796
36,123
4,892
4,892
chv
454
–
997 / 504
1,012 / 854
ddo
1,403
3,547
445
445
dgo
137
–
498 / 504
499 / 854
Table 4: Number of sentences in the extracted and existing datasets. For FLORES, the devtest set is used as the test set. In cells with two numbers, the left one corresponds to FLORES and the right one to BOUQuET.
Lang
Qwen
nllb
0 shot
512 shot
OOB
fine-tuned
Without NLLB support
arp
3.86
* 32.90 \upbox ↑ 29.04
–
9.96
chv
20.99
* 30.49 \upbox ↑ 9.50
–
5.14
ddo
0.17
* 24.24 \upbox ↑ 24.07
–
1.93
dgo
21.18
* 20.68 \downbox ↓ 0.50
–
4.12
Table 5: Extracted data improves few-shot translation performance into LRLs . Results are reported in chrF2++( ↑ ). OOB denotes out-of-the-box performance. * p-value<0.05 .
Lang
Qwen
nllb
0 shot
512 shot
OOB
fine-tuned
Without NLLB support †
arp
11.67
* 22.09 \upbox ↑ 10.42
8.62
* 12.59 \upbox ↑ 3.97
chv
47.46
* 48.66 \upbox ↑ 1.20
19.72
* 24.47 \upbox ↑ 4.75
ddo
14.76
* 27.64 \upbox ↑ 12.88
10.27
* 16.55 \upbox ↑ 6.28
dgo
47.52
* 50.50 \upbox ↑ 2.98
42.86
* 39.53 \downbox ↓ 3.33
Table 6: Extracted data improves few-shot translation performance into HRLs . Results are reported in chrF2++( ↑ ). † Proxy source language codes are used. * p-value<0.05 .
Lang
LASER2
LABSE
SONAR
xsim ↓
xsim ↓
lang code
xsim ↓
Without NLLB support †
arp
96.89
94.60
eng_Latn
95.34
chv
76.19
33.70
tat_Cyrl
33.40
ddo
97.08
90.34
eng_Latn
90.79
dgo
40.48
0.80
hin_Deva
0.20
Table 7: xSIM error rate (%) on test sets. SONAR achieves the lowest error rate. † Proxy SONAR language codes are used.
Alignment Method
Precision
Recall
F1
Methods without prior knowledge
Global Mining
0.0610
0.0549
0.0578
Local Mining
0.0851
0.2473
0.1266
Vecalign
0.2776
0.4560
0.3451
Hunalign w/o dict.
0.2435
0.2582
0.2507
VLM (our method)
1.0000
0.7657
0.8673
Table 8: Alignment performance of different methods. VLM achieves the best performance. Its imperfect recall is due to pages dominated by word-level alignments, where sentence-level alignments are overlooked.
Lang
Into LRL
Into HRL
Gold
Book
Gold
Book
Without NLLB support
arp
48.32
* 32.90 \downbox ↓ 15.42
39.30
* 22.09 \downbox ↓ 17.21
chv
33.77
* 30.49 \downbox ↓ 3.28
49.96
* 48.66 \downbox ↓ 1.30
ddo
43.59
* 24.24 \downbox ↓ 19.35
42.38
* 27.64 \downbox ↓ 14.74
dgo
34.52
* 20.68 \downbox ↓ 13.84
54.62
* 50.50 \downbox ↓ 4.12
Table 9: chrF2++ scores for 512-shot translation with Qwen . Extracted bitexts are narrowing the gap to gold in-domain bitexts. † Excluded from the average as it has only 3 gold examples. * p-value<0.05 .
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Script-level CER for dots.ocr , HunyuanOCR , and PaddleOCR-VL . CER values exceeding 100% indicate that the corresponding script is not supported by the model.
Lang
Books
Existing Data
Normalization
arp
use diacritics (e.g., é, í, ó)
no diacritics
remove diacritics
chv
Latin script
Cyrillic script
script conversion
ddo
noisy OCR (e.g., ā, ç, ġ)
diacritics (e.g., ä, č, š)
correct OCR errors
dgo
IPA
Devanagari script
Codex-proposed conversion rules
dik
diacritics and noisy OCR (e.g., à, ç, ē)
diacritics (e.g., í, ó, ú)
correct OCR errors
git
use diacritics
no diacritics; use U+0332
remove diacritics
Appendix
Table 10: Orthographic differences between the archival books and the existing dataset, along with the normalization applied to reconcile them. Differences caused by OCR errors are also included.
Lang
Standard Norm.
Further Norm.
Into-LRL translation
ddo
24.24
25.86 \upbox ↑ 1.62
dik
16.89
19.92 \upbox ↑ 3.03
git
23.16
25.14 \upbox ↑ 1.98
gug
26.05
24.63 \downbox ↓ 1.42
kmb
16.19
16.52 \upbox ↑ 0.33
Appendix
Table 11: 512 shot chrF2++ scores with Qwen . Standard Norm. applies only the normalization steps in Section 4.3 to the extracted bitext, while Further Norm. additionally removes diacritics from both the extracted and test sentences.
Lang
BLASER 2.0-QE ↑
Extracted
Test
arp
2.798
2.755
chv
2.804
2.792
ddo
2.721
2.466
dgo
2.851
3.683
git
2.867
2.820
Appendix
Table 12: BLASER 2.0-QE scores for unsupported languages.
Lang
Into LRL
Into HRL
0 shot
8 shot
0 shot
8 shot
Without NLLB support
arp
5.02
* 23.39 \upbox ↑ 18.37
11.88
* 16.72 \upbox ↑ 4.84
chv
15.56
* 18.29 \upbox ↑ 2.73
33.42
* 33.94 \upbox ↑ 0.52
ddo
0.60
* 13.46 \upbox ↑ 12.86
16.19
* 19.56 \upbox ↑ 3.37
dgo
13.08
* 16.59 \upbox ↑ 3.51
36.84
36.60 \downbox ↓ 0.24
Appendix
Table 13: chrF2++ ( ↑ ) scores for few-shot MT using Llama-3.1-8B . * p-value<0.05 .
Figure 7: Few-shot MT experiments on arp dev set with varying numbers of parallel examples. Performance of Qwen3.6-27B continues to improve as more examples are provided, whereas Llama-3.1-8B-instruct plateaus quickly.
Lang
Qwen
nllb
0 shot
512 shot
OOB
fine-tuned
Without NLLB support
arp
0.14
* 16.73 \upbox ↑ 16.59
–
1.00
chv
6.69
* 20.85 \upbox ↑ 14.16
–
0.42
ddo
0.00
* 11.83 \upbox ↑ 11.83
–
0.08
dgo
4.21
4.10 \downbox ↓ 0.11
–
0.24
Appendix
Table 14: spBLEU scores for translation into LRL . * p-value<0.05 .
Lang
Qwen
nllb
0 shot
512 shot
OOB
fine-tuned
Without NLLB support †
arp
2.37
* 7.98 \upbox ↑ 5.61
0.67
* 1.57 \upbox ↑ 0.90
chv
25.00
* 26.23 \upbox ↑ 1.23
2.76
* 5.10 \upbox ↑ 2.34
ddo
0.31
* 8.35 \upbox ↑ 8.04
0.20
* 1.47 \upbox ↑ 1.27
dgo
24.53
* 27.76 \upbox ↑ 3.23
19.39
* 14.09 \downbox ↓ 5.30
Appendix
Table 15: spBLEU scores for translation into HRL . † Proxy source language codes are used. * p-value<0.05 .
Lang
Into LRL
Into HRL
0 shot
512 shot
0 shot
512 shot
Book
Gold
Book
Gold
Without NLLB support
chv
18.43
* 29.03 \upbox ↑ 10.60
* 36.30 \upbox ↑ 7.27
49.41
* 50.76 \upbox ↑ 1.35
* 52.45 \upbox ↑ 1.69
dgo
21.79
* 21.44 \downbox ↓ 0.35
* 41.62 \upbox ↑ 20.18
49.34
* 52.11 \upbox ↑ 2.77
* 61.37 \upbox ↑ 9.26
With NLLB support
Appendix
Table 16: chrF2++ ( ↑ ) results for Qwen3.6-27B on the BOUQuET test set. 0-shot performance serves as the baseline for comparison with 512-shot using book examples. The 512-shot setting with gold in-domain examples serves as the topline for comparison with 512-shot prompting using book examples. * p-value<0.05 . On the top is a visualization of the results.
Lang
Into Creole
Into English
0 shot
512 shot
0 shot
512 shot
aoa
9.64
* 23.35 \upbox ↑ 13.71
10.90
* 23.62 \upbox ↑ 12.72
bah
11.77
* 7.61 \downbox ↓ 4.16
51.31
51.89 \upbox ↑ 0.58
brc
10.52
* 39.29 \upbox ↑ 28.77
15.23
* 44.71 \upbox ↑ 29.48
bzj
25.12
* 28.25 \upbox ↑ 3.13
38.73
* 48.14 \upbox ↑ 9.41
bzk
13.10
* 36.45 \upbox ↑ 23.35
57.61
* 62.41 \upbox ↑ 4.80
Appendix
Table 17: chrF2++ scores with Qwen on the Kreyòl-MT public test set. * p-value<0.05 .
Pre-trained Large Language Model (LLMs) are effective on many tasks in zero-shot and few-shot settings. For machine translation of low-resource languages, the obvious options are few-shot prompting and fine-tuning on a small parallel set. We ask: what if moderate amounts of low-resource monolingual data are also available? We argue that, rather than continued pretraining, a more effective use of this data is the pre-LLM era technique of back-translation (BT). The current fine-tuned LLM translates monolingual sentences in each language, and the resulting pairs train it in the reverse direction. Updates on the parallel set are interleaved for stable learning. With 1K parallel pairs on Odia and Swahili, BT beats continued pretraining into the low-resource language by 7.7 to 16.4 XCOMET-XXL points in domain. With beam-decoded intermediate translations, it also beats a model with 10 time more parallel data. In-context examples retrieved from the parallel data further improve BT. We also analyze the source, quality and amount of monolingual text. Across five low-resource languages, with Hindi as a high-resource control, and two 3B backbones, BT improves translation into the low-resource language by 16 to 173% XCOMET-XXL over parallel-only fine-tuning. Blind human evaluation on Odia and Sanskrit agrees with the automatic metrics.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across many downstream tasks, yet their effectiveness in extremely low-resource machine translation remains limited. Standard adaptation techniques typically rely on large-scale parallel data or extensive fine-tuning, which are infeasible for the long tail of underrepresented languages. In this work, we investigate a more constrained question: in data-scarce settings, to what extent can linguistically similar pivot languages and few-shot demonstrations provide useful guidance for on-the-fly adaptation in LLMs? We study a data-efficient experimental setup that combines linguistically related pivot languages with few-shot in-context examples, without any parameter updates, and evaluate translation behavior under controlled conditions. Our analysis shows that while pivot-based prompting can yield improvements in certain configurations, particularly in settings where the target language is less well represented in the model's vocabulary, the gains are often modest and sensitive to few shot example construction. For closely related or better represented varieties, we observe diminishing or inconsistent gains. Our findings provide empirical guidance on how and when inference-time prompting and pivot-based examples can be used as a lightweight alternative to fine-tuning in low-resource translation settings.
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