Calibrating Translation Decoding with Quality Estimation on LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural machine translation (NMT) systems typically employ maximum a posteriori (MAP) decoding to select the highest-scoring translation from the distribution mass. However, recent evidence highlights the inadequacy of MAP decoding, often resulting in low-quality or even pathological hypotheses -- the decoding objective is not aligned with real-world translation quality. This paper proposes calibrating hypothesis likelihoods with translation quality from a distribution view by directly optimizing their Pearson correlation -- thereby enhancing the effectiveness of translation decoding. With our method, translation on large language models (LLMs) improves substantially after limited training (2K instances per direction). This improvement is orthogonal to those achieved through supervised fine-tuning, leading to substantial gains across a broad range of metrics and human evaluations -- even when applied to top-performing translation-specialized LLMs fine-tuned on high-quality translation data, such as Tower, or when compared to recent preference optimization methods, like CPO. Moreover, the calibrated translation likelihood can directly serve as a strong proxy for translation quality, closely approximating or even surpassing some state-of-the-art translation quality estimation models, like CometKiwi. Lastly, our in-depth analysis demonstrates that calibration enhances the effectiveness of MAP decoding, thereby enabling greater efficiency in real-world deployment. The resulting state-of-the-art translation model, which covers 10 languages, along with the accompanying code and human evaluation data, has been released to the community: https://github.com/moore3930/calibrating-llm-mt.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2025.
Builds on
31 of 54 references.
References · 31
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 1,053
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2024Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Samplingcited by 991
- 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 963
- 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 759
- 2024Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translationcited by 394
- 2023How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 348
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
- 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 335
- 2024Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedbackcited by 260
19 more
- 2020Unsupervised Quality Estimation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 211
- 2024Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Taskscited by 206
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
- 2022Calibrating Sequence likelihood Improves Conditional Language Generationcited by 121
- 2018Correcting Length Bias in Neural Machine Translationcited by 120
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
- 2024MetricX-24: The Google Submission to the WMT 2024 Metrics Shared Taskcited by 93
- 2023A Paradigm Shift in Machine Translation: Boosting Translation Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 89
- 2019Calibration of Encoder Decoder Models for Neural Machine Translationcited by 68
- 2020On the Inference Calibration of Neural Machine Translationcited by 61
- 2024A Survey of Uncertainty Estimation in LLMs: Theory Meets Practicecited by 55
- 2022Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 49
- 2024Navigating the Metrics Maze: Reconciling Score Magnitudes and Accuraciescited by 40
- 2025Evaluation of Best-of-N Sampling Strategies for Language Model Alignmentcited by 39
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization for Neural Machine Translation with Minimum Bayes Risk Decodingcited by 28
- 2015deltaBLEU: A Discriminative Metric for Generation Tasks with Intrinsically Diverse Targetscited by 21
- 2024QUEST: Quality-Aware Metropolis-Hastings Sampling for Machine Translationcited by 16
- 2024Mitigating Metric Bias in Minimum Bayes Risk Decodingcited by 16
- 2024A Preference-driven Paradigm for Enhanced Translation with Large Language Modelscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Is Preference Alignment Always the Best Option to Enhance LLM-Based Translation? An Empirical Analysis
- 2025Beyond Decoder-only: Large Language Models Can be Good Encoders for Machine Translation
- 2025The Uneven Impact of Post-Training Quantization in Machine Translation
- 2026Predicting Multilingual Classification and Translation Performance of LLMs with Cross-Lingual Alignment -- Is English Enough?
- 2025Bridging the Linguistic Divide: A Survey on Leveraging Large Language Models for Machine Translation
- 2024GenTranslate: Large Language Models are Generative Multilingual Speech and Machine Translators
- 2024What do Large Language Models Need for Machine Translation Evaluation?
- 2024Choose the Final Translation from NMT and LLM hypotheses Using MBR Decoding: HW-TSC's Submission to the WMT24 General MT Shared Task