Today’s MT research digest highlights work on multilingual generation, translationese, and evaluation, alongside broader advances in multimodal interaction and benchmark design. A common theme is that researchers are probing how tokenization, parsing, and model choices shape output quality, especially in multilingual and academic settings. Another recurring thread is the push for stronger evaluation frameworks that better capture reasoning, conversational behavior, and real-world translation performance.

Multi-turn Conversational AI from Text to Multimodal Interaction: Data, Models, Evaluation, and Open Challenges

Conversational AI is moving beyond isolated text prompts toward sustained, multimodal interaction. In real conversations, users clarify goals, revise requests, interrupt responses, switch topics, and introduce new evidence while expecting systems to preserve context across turns. This makes multi-turn dialogue a distinct challenge requiring systems to maintain and update memory, ground responses across modalities, tools, and external knowledge, and adapt across languages and cultures. This study reviews multi-turn conversational AI across text-only dialogue, AudioLLMs and speech-native systems, multimodal and omni-modal systems, and tool-augmented agents. We organize the literature around datasets and benchmarks, modeling paradigms, training strategies, evaluation setups, and cross-cutting challenges. Our analysis shows that support for multiple modalities has advanced faster than the ability to sustain coherent interaction across a session. Despite stronger capabilities to perceive, speak, and act across modalities, current systems still struggle with persistent memory, cross-turn grounding, full-duplex interaction, robust evaluation, and cultural alignment. We conclude with a research agenda for systems that can remember, revise, ground, speak, listen, act, and adapt across turns, modalities, and cultures. (https://github.com/faiza-sfa/multiturn-conversational-ai-survey)

BEAR-Bench: A Bilingual Enterprise and Academic Reasoning Benchmark for Multimodal Models

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made significant strides in visual comprehension, their ability to reason about text-dense, professional documents remains incompletely evaluated. Existing benchmarks emphasize information extraction, require external domain knowledge, or cover professional documents only as one of many settings. They are also largely English- or Chinese-centric, leaving other languages and Russian, in particular, substantially underrepresented. To address these limitations, we introduce BEAR-Bench (Bilingual Enterprise and Academic Reasoning), a self-contained, complex English-and-Russian benchmark comprising 1000 human-annotated questions based on text-rich business and scientific documents. We evaluate 16 proprietary and open-weight MLLMs, including Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.5-397B, on BEAR-Bench and observe clear headroom even for the strongest systems. Finally, we use the resulting model outputs to compare existing hallucination detection methods, evaluating not only how often models fail on BEAR-Bench but also how reliably those failures can be identified.

Code as Representation: A Compilable Parsing Paradigm for Academic Documents

Academic papers are a primary carrier of scientific knowledge, yet most of this knowledge remains locked in PDFs that are optimized for human reading rather than machine use. For Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), the core challenge is not only perception, but representation: scientific pages interleave text with Structured Academic Elements (SAEs) such as tables, formulas, charts, and pseudocode, whose structure, data, and logic are poorly preserved by common surrogates like Markdown. We therefore propose Compilable Academic Document Parsing (CADP), a paradigm that reconstructs a full page as contextual \LaTeX{} plus executable Python, so that structure-preserving elements and executable chart representations can be reconstructed, recompiled, and directly verified against the source page. To support this setting, we introduce CADP-Bench, an expert-verified benchmark of full academic pages containing tightly coupled text and multiple SAE types, evaluated through a re-injection compilation protocol. We further study current capabilities using SOTA MLLMs and an exploratory multi-agent baseline that incorporates common agentic techniques. Results show that even frontier models still struggle to produce high-fidelity executable reconstructions, highlighting substantial room for improvement in structure-aware scientific document parsing. CADP-Bench is released for future research.

An Investigation of Translationese in the Generations of Multilingual Large Language Models

Text which has been translated from another language tends to carry with it evidence of translation$\unicode{x2014}$hence, it is often referred to as $\textit{translationese}$. Multilingual large language models (MLLMs) generate text in a variety of languages. However, it is still unclear if MLLMs' generations resemble internal translation (from English or, potentially, other languages) and, thus, result in translationese. Here, we ask the following research questions: (1) Does text generated by MLLMs resemble translationese? (2) How does translationese produced by MLLMs differ from translationese produced through direct translation? We leverage established indicators of translated text to evaluate text generated by state-of-the-art MLLMs in five languages, comparing to both non-translated and human-written baselines in order to isolate translationese from other kinds of interference. Through the use of high-accuracy classification models, analyses of variance on individual linguistic features, and the collection of human annotations in a subset of two languages (German and Spanish), we assess the translationese content of MLLM generations and examine the key features that distinguish MLLM-generated text from typical translation-related interference.

TokEval: A Tokenizer Evaluation Suite

Language model tokenizers are typically selected with minimal evaluation, despite the fact that their design choices directly impact model capabilities. This can be partly attributed to a limited understanding of which tokenizer properties affect which aspects of downstream performance. We introduce TokEval, a framework of tokenizer evaluation metrics that goes beyond standard measures like fertility and compression rate to capture linguistically and structurally meaningful properties, e.g., UTF-8 character boundary integrity and digit place-value boundary alignment for mathematics. To validate whether these metrics are predictive of downstream model performance, we conduct controlled language model pretraining experiments, varying solely the tokenizers' training data mixture, pretokenization strategy, and training algorithm. We evaluate the resulting models on bits-per-byte (a tokenizer-agnostic version of perplexity) and several benchmarks, spanning linguistic understanding, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. Our experiments suggest that different intrinsic properties have different impacts on model abilities: information-theoretic metrics predict language modeling abilities (Spearman rho up to 0.80), while structure-sensitive metrics, such as those measuring digit and line-break handling, correlate with task accuracy. We hope TokEval enables more principled tokenizer evaluation, replacing pretraining sweeps with intrinsic measurement wherever the two agree.