Today’s MT research digest highlights work on making translation and related generation systems more reliable, robust, and faithful under realistic constraints.

A clear theme is stronger verification and feedback mechanisms, from grounded revision checks to denoising and perturbation robustness, aimed at reducing fragile outputs. Another thread is efficiency and fidelity: preserving language priors, improving lexical accuracy without glosses, and questioning whether iterative self-refinement actually beats simpler repeated sampling at equal cost.

AutoSupervision: Closing the Feedback Loop in Scientific Workflows with Grounded Revision Verification

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled AI systems to assist scientific research and peer review. However, an essential capability for reliable AI-assisted scientific workflows remains underexplored: verifying whether reviewer feedback leads to meaningful and evidence-supported manuscript improvements. We introduce AutoSupervision, which evaluates whether scientific manuscript revisions genuinely address reviewer concerns through grounded evidence. AutoSupervision leverages transparent peer-review records as a natural source of supervision, where reviewer comments specify scientific concerns, author responses describe claimed resolutions, and revised manuscripts provide evidence of changes. Given reviewer comments, author responses, and revised manuscripts, models must characterize reviewer concerns, determine whether concerns have been addressed, and identify supporting manuscript evidence. We construct AutoSupervision from 56,000 Nature Communications articles and corresponding review records. Then we conducted experiments on LLMs, the ablation study, and the case study. Our results show that while LLMs perform well in characterizing reviewer concerns, with GPT-5.5 achieving a score of 0.754, evidence-based verification remains the primary bottleneck, with the best-performing model reaching only 0.501.

CDAE: Enhancing Perturbation Robustness in Pretrained Language Models with Contrastive Denoising

Pre-trained language models have significantly improved sentence representation learning, yet their embedding remain sensitive to semantic preserving textual perturbations such as synonym substitution, masking and word dropout. This work proposes a lightweight Contrastive Denoising Autoencoder (CDAE) that refines pre-trained BERT embedding by jointly optimizing contrastive and reconstruction objective to learn perturbation-invariant representation. We evaluate the proposed framework using multiple perturbation strategies with varying strengths and compare it against the original BERT embeddings and SimCSE. Experimental results show that CDAE consistently preserves higher embedding similarity under perturbations, with the improvements becoming more pronounced as framework effectively enhances representation stability while preserving semantic information, highlighting perturbation-invariant learning as a promising direction for improving sentence embeddings. The source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/ComputationIASBS/CDAE

Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language

In this paper, we draw a comparison between linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) to find out if they struggle with complex linguistic phenomena in a similar way. For this purpose, we analyse evaluative language in spoken popular science discourse, with the example of a corpus of English TED talk transcripts. We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation. In this context, Appraisal theory is an example of a highly subjective annotation task, making it a suitable example for the study of complex annotation challenges. First, we assess human annotations on a sentence level in specific scientific domains. Then, we develop three prompts and compare them for model performance for the automatic classification of Appraisal classes. We assess the performance of three LLMs using the best-performing prompt and finetune the model, reaching an F1-score of 0.77. We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores. We conclude that LLMs can aid in complex annotation task resolution, opening new pathways for the complex theories annotated and analyzed in digital humanities studies.

DualAnchor: Preserving Language Priors and Improving Lexical Fidelity in Gloss-Free Sign Language Translation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led sign language translation (SLT), the task of converting sign-language videos into spoken-language text, to increasingly adopt LLMs as textual backbones. However, despite their strong language modeling capabilities, existing LLM-based SLT methods often undermine rather than exploit this language prior, producing disfluent translations, a failure we term language-prior degradation. Meanwhile, existing methods typically align videos and text at the sentence level, which does not ensure accurate lexical details and creates a lexical fidelity gap. To address both issues, we propose DualAnchor, a gloss-free LLM-based SLT training framework that couples two complementary anchors for linguistically fluent and visually faithful generation. Token-level Prior Anchoring (TPA) preserves the LLM's language prior by regularizing the multimodal decoder at each decoding step toward the next-token distribution of a frozen LLM conditioned on the same autoregressive prefix. Optimal Transport Alignment (OTA) improves lexical fidelity by formulating visual-textual matching as entropy-regularized partial optimal transport, with Sinkhorn optimization inducing a soft alignment between visual tokens and textual content tokens under a cosine cost. DualAnchor achieves strong overall performance on both PHOENIX-2014T and CSL-Daily. Targeted analyses attribute these gains to the complementary effects of the two anchors: TPA improves fluency, whereas OTA reduces fine-grained lexical errors.

Sample More, Reflect Less: Self-Refine and Reflexion Lose to Repeated Sampling at Equal Token Cost, from 1.5B to 7B

Methods that make a language model plan, criticise and rewrite its own answer, reflect on mistakes, pick the best of several attempts, or debate with copies of itself nearly all make it generate far more text than a single chain of thought. Because generating more text raises accuracy by itself, a gain over one chain of thought does not show the method's idea is what helped. Wang et al. (2024) reported that a simple baseline, sampling the same question repeatedly and keeping the most common answer, often wins once budgets are comparable, but gave point estimates with no confidence intervals or significance tests. We rerun that comparison as a designed experiment: seven methods, open models of 1.5B, 3B and 7B parameters, two mathematics benchmarks, 150 questions each. We count every generated token, including those spent on critiques, reflections, debate turns and checking, and compare each method against repeated sampling at its own measured cost. All 36 comparisons are paired by question, with bootstrap intervals and multiplicity correction. No method is reliably better than repeated sampling at equal cost anywhere. Ten are reliably worse, all of them methods where the model inspects its own output, and all 18 self-inspection comparisons are negative. The two kinds of self-inspection part company as models grow. Choosing stops hurting: taking Best-of-N's eight samples and just counting the most common answer beats letting the model pick by 8.0 and 11.3 points at 1.5B, but only 2.0 and 1.3 at 7B, no longer distinguishable from zero. Rewriting does not recover: Self-Refine and a forced Reflexion stay 3.6 to 10.1 points below baseline at 7B. Reflexion as published never triggered its own retry on the smallest model. It judged itself correct every time and silently became a single chain of thought. We release code, prompts, all generations, and our verification scripts.