Today’s MT research digest highlights a mix of translation-focused training and evaluation work, with a notable emphasis on judging outputs by their end results rather than intermediate edits. Across the selected papers, common themes include preference-based optimization from legacy post-edits, adapting LLMs for low-resource translation, and stress-testing evaluation methods to see whether automated judges and factuality metrics can be trusted.

Don't Count the Edits, Judge by the Outcome Alone: Reward-Based Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction

Grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation has traditionally relied on reference or edit overlap, which can penalize valid rewrites that differ from gold corrections. Reference-free metrics reduce this dependence, but evaluating whether a fluent output is a valid correction of the source remains challenging. We propose SURE, a source-conditioned reward evaluator trained on within-source preferences spanning minimal-edit and rewrite-oriented corrections. SURE jointly learns an overall reward with criteria-level supervision for grammaticality, faithfulness, and fluency, together with span-level grounding for source-side error resolution. Experiments on SEEDA show that SURE performs competitively against strong baselines, with particular gains on rewrite-style corrections and more disentangled criteria-level diagnostics. Our code is available at https://github.com/hayeonggg/SURE.

ReMova: Fine-tuning LLMs for English to Belarusian translation

This paper presents a Belarusian-specific data-cleaning pipeline and fine-tuning for English-Belarusian machine translation. Our cleaning pipeline distinguishes itself from others by employing a correction tool that addresses the issue of the two orthographies of the Belarusian language, noise in the training data, interference from other languages and other misspelling issues common in Belarusian on the internet. A matched ablation on unfiltered training data shows substantial benefits from filtering for all fine-tuned models, with the LLM-based models gaining roughly twice as much from filtering as the dedicated encoder-decoder MT system, supporting the view that for Belarusian MT one of the primary bottlenecks is data quality.

StalePO: Anchored Token-Level Preference Optimization using Legacy Post-Edits in Machine Translation

Machine translation systems are periodically upgraded to stronger models, but the available preference signal is human post-edits of an older system's outputs, which the newer model may already surpass. Moreover, collecting fresh post-edits for every new model is prohibitively expensive. We call this the Stale Preference problem. Standard DPO can fail in this setting: it may increase the likelihood of inferior post-edits, erode the model's existing quality, and fail to provide the per-token control needed to correct localized errors. We introduce StalePO, an objective derived from three requirements this regime imposes. Likelihood movement must be downward on both responses, the policy must be anchored to its own base response, and the KL constraint must apply at the token level. These requirements are jointly necessary. In ablations, each mechanism in isolation leaves the model's performance indistinguishable from the base model, and only their combination converts stale feedback into gains. On English-to-Hindi and English-to-Turkish localization data, StalePO improves the fraction of segments passing all LLM-as-judge MQM quality checks by 14.9 and 4.6 percentage points, respectively, with gains concentrated on style and fluency. A human evaluation under the same framework confirms these gains on English-to-Hindi, raising the fraction of segments passing all seven human checks by 13.8 percentage points.

Option-Aware Retrieval and Task-Specific VLM Adaptation for Medical VQA

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0\% to 57.5\% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number (k) of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5\%) at both (k=0) and the adapter's training-time (k=1), 188/200 (94.0\%) at the packaged runtime's default (k=3) --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of (k=3), selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as (k) grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant ((p \ge 0.29)); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0\% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20\% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43\% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).

Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation

Evaluating the factual correctness of large language models (LLMs) is vital for many applications. But are our evaluation tools themselves trustworthy? Despite the rise of factuality-based metrics, their sensitivity and reliability remain underexplored. This paper introduces a meta-evaluation framework that systematically tests these metrics using controlled corruptions of gold standard answers. Our method generates ranked outputs with known degrees of degradation to probe how metrics capture nuanced changes in truthfulness. Our experiments reveal that pipeline-based methods, such as the RAGAS's factual correctness metric, better track degradation than LLM-as-judge approaches. We also propose a new variant of the factual correctness metric that provides a competitive and cost-efficient.