Today’s MT research digest highlights work on evaluation, alignment, and annotation across multilingual and language-processing settings. A common thread is the push for more robust benchmarks and finer-grained labeling schemes that better capture real-world variation and distribution shifts. Another theme is understanding how large language models interact with human language behavior, from clarification and attribution to learner error analysis and brain-alignment studies.

SonicCaps: Large-Scale Diverse and Fine-Grained Captioning for Improved Audio-Retrieval

Recent advances in audio-language modeling have been driven by large-scale audio captioning datasets. However, existing datasets remain limited by low semantic diversity, generic descriptions lacking acoustic details, and one-to-one audio-caption mappings that poorly reflect the inherent ambiguity of auditory perception. We introduce SonicCaps, a large-scale audio captioning dataset comprising ~15M captions paired with ~700k audio clips, generated using a multi-modal large language model (Qwen3-Omni) conditioned on both audio and text. To explicitly promote diversity, we generate around 24 captions per audio via structured prompt engineering and few- shot generation, spanning main descriptions, rephrased variants (verbosity, style) and semantic tags. Human evaluation shows that SonicCaps is rated significantly higher than existing captioning datasets, with fine-grained analyses indicating that our captions are perceived as more descriptive and precise, which strongly correlates with quality judgments. Finally, training CLAP models on SonicCaps with a multi-caption sampling strategy consistently improves audio retrieval and zero-shot classification, with stronger generalization across public and commercial benchmarks. We release both SonicCaps and two specialized CLAP models on hugging face: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Zineb/SonicCaps.

MultiGhostBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Long-Form LLM-Generated Text Attribution under Distribution Shifts

While existing work on LLM authorship attribution (AA) has made progress, available benchmarks remain limited, often focusing on English, controlled settings, or relatively outdated models, with the few multilingual studies considering only relatively short texts. We introduce MultiGhostBench, a multilingual benchmark comprising 928 books generated by five recent LLMs across six languages and three scripts, with an average length of approximately 59K words per book. The benchmark supports evaluation under domain, author, and language shifts. Evaluation of representative AA methods shows that no single method consistently performs best across settings, and performance generally degrades under distribution shifts. Transformer-based detectors can retain generator-related information across languages, although transfer effectiveness varies by language pair, whereas statistical and fingerprint-based detectors are more language-dependent. We envision MultiGhostBench as a valuable resource for the development and evaluation of robust AA methods. The dataset and code can be found at https://github.com/GrecoMT/MultiGhostBench.

A Layered Taxonomy for Chinese Learner Grammatical Error Annotation

Grammatical error annotation in Chinese learner writing requires labels that are both consistent and linguistically meaningful. This paper proposes a layered scheme linking computational Chinese grammatical error correction (CGEC) with pedagogical error analysis. The scheme first identifies character- and punctuation-level orthographic errors, labeling them by edit operation and subtype. Other errors receive a three-layer core label combining edit operation, linguistic domain, and part of speech, with optional Chinese-specific extensions for aspect, modality, comparison, argument structure, and complements. Drawing on CGEC resources, learner-error taxonomies, and Mandarin grammar, the taxonomy is evaluated through a coverage analysis of automatically extracted MuCGEC edits and a preliminary consistency study in which five large language models apply it to a sample. The results support the layered approach while identifying category boundaries requiring further refinement.

No country for old linguists: LLM-brain alignment underdetermines neural computation

Nastase et al. (2026) argue that large language models (LLMs) may illuminate language processing because both rely on distributed, context-sensitive representations shaped by statistical learning. Their rejection of simple cortical "boxology" is persuasive, and they articulate a strong case for the value of LLM-brain alignment research. The key question is what kind of inference LLM-brain alignment licenses. My claim here will be narrow: representational alignment can in principle constrain mechanistic hypotheses, but it does not by itself identify a mechanism. Nastase et al. acknowledge that an encoding model can capture features represented in neural activity without establishing a shared architecture or algorithm. Yet the authors sometime move from alignment to "shared computational principles" and ultimately to LLMs as mechanistic models of natural language. Indeed, their methodological caveat that alignment does not establish a shared architecture or algorithm sits uneasily with their conclusion that LLMs might instantiate the same computational principles as biological brains and provide a "fully mechanistic model" of language. I discuss what I consider to be problems of logical, causal, and computational underdetermination in Nastase et al.'s (2026) proposal.

A Tri-Agent Framework for Evaluating and Aligning Question Clarification Capabilities of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive systems where understanding user intent precisely is paramount. A key capability for such systems is effective question clarification, especially when user queries are ambiguous or underspecified. This paper introduces a novel tri-agent framework for the robust evaluation of an LLM's ability to engage in clarifying dialogue. Our framework comprises three distinct LLM-based agents: (1) a Question Clarifying Agent (QCA), the system under evaluation, tasked with identifying ambiguities and posing clarifying questions; (2) a Respondent Agent (RA), designed to simulate human user responses, potentially including irrelevant or challenging replies; and (3) an Evaluator Agent (EA), an LLM-as-a-judge, which assesses the quality of the dialogue based on a comprehensive set of metrics. We detail a methodology for synthetic data generation in the supply chain domain as an example. We propose metrics evaluating ambiguity handling, question quality, dialogue efficiency, language appropriateness, and final intent alignment. We also briefly discuss the validation of the EA against human judgments. This work provides a structured approach to benchmark, validate, and improve the clarification capabilities of conversational LLM applications.