Updating bilingual dictionary entries is a tedious, time-consuming, and highly subjective task, especially when a new sense in the source language requires identifying an appropriate translation equivalent. To date, there have been no attempts to automatize the discovery of new bilingual sense entries. Related tasks such as Word-level Bilingual Dictionary Induction and cross-lingual embedding alignment do not account for polysemy and are not applied to lexicographic data. In contrast to their monolingual counterparts, bilingual dictionaries fall short in terms of completeness, detail with respect to examples and glosses, and diachronic information. We introduce a novel NLP task, Sense-Level Bilingual Dictionary Induction (SenseBDI), at the intersection of lexical semantics, cross-lingual, and diachronic NLP. We construct a dataset of time-stamped sense-level bilingual dictionary entries by aligning two bilingual dictionaries, two monolingual dictionaries, and the multilingual resource BabelNet, thereby enriching bilingual entries with monolingual source-language information. We propose a baseline based on nearest-neighbor search over cross-lingual embeddings of glosses and usages. We find that usages contribute more strongly than glosses, with substantial variation across language pairs and discuss task-specific challenges with regards to target language polysemy and future directions such as transfer to real-world scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for creative tasks such as literary translation. Yet translational creativity remains underexplored and is rarely evaluated at scale, while source-text comprehension is typically studied in isolation, despite the fact that, in professional translation, comprehension and creativity are tightly intertwined. We address these gaps with a paired-task framework applied to literary excerpts from 11 books. Task 1 assesses source-text comprehension, and Task 2 evaluates translational creativity through Units of Creative Potential (UCPs), such as metaphors and wordplay. Using a scalable evaluation setup that combines expert human annotations with UCP-based automatic scoring, we benchmark 23 models and four creativity-oriented prompts. Our findings show that strong comprehension does not translate into human-level creativity: models often produce literal or contextually inappropriate renderings, with particularly large gaps for the more distant English–Chinese language pair. Creativity-oriented prompts yield only modest gains, and only one model, Mistral-Large, comes close to human-level creativity (0.167 vs. 0.246). Across all model–prompt combinations, only three exceed a creativity score of 0.1, while the rest remain at or near zero.

Sign language lexicographers construct bilingual dictionaries by establishing word-to-sign mappings, where polysemous and homonymous words corresponding to different signs across contexts are often underrepresented. A usage-based approach examining how word senses map to signs can identify such novel mappings absent from current dictionaries, enriching lexicographic resources.We address this by analyzing German and German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS), manually annotating 1,404 word use–to–sign ID mappings derived from 32 words from the German Word Usage Graph (D-WUG) and 49 signs from the Digital Dictionary of German Sign Language (DW-DGS). We identify three correspondence types: Type 1 (one-to-many), Type 2 (many-to-one), and Type 3 (one-to-one), plus No Match cases. We evaluate computational methods: Exact Match (EM) and Semantic Similarity (SS) using SBERT embeddings. SS substantially outperforms EM overall 88.52% vs. 71.31%), with dramatic gains for Type 1 (+52.1 pp). Our work establishes the first annotated dataset for cross-modal sense correspondence and reveals which correspondence patterns are computationally tractable.Our code and dataset are made publicly available

Recent research has focused on literary machine translation (MT) as a new challenge in MT. However, the evaluation of literary MT remains an open problem. We contribute to this ongoing discussion by introducing LITEVAL-CORPUS, a paragraph-level parallel corpus containing verified human translations and outputs from 9 MT systems, which totals over 2k translations and 13k evaluated sentences across four language pairs, costing 4.5k€. This corpus enables us to (i) examine the consistency and adequacy of human evaluation schemes with various degrees of complexity, (ii) compare evaluations by students and professionals, assess the effectiveness of (iii) LLM-based metrics and (iv) LLMs themselves. Our findings indicate that the adequacy of human evaluation is controlled by two factors: the complexity of the evaluation scheme (more complex is less adequate) and the expertise of evaluators (higher expertise yields more adequate evaluations). For instance, MQM (Multidimensional Quality Metrics), a complex scheme and the de facto standard for non-literary human MT evaluation, is largely inadequate for literary translation evaluation: with student evaluators, nearly 60% of human translations are misjudged as indistinguishable or inferior to machine translations. In contrast, BWS (BEST-WORST SCALING), a much simpler scheme, identifies human translations at a rate of 80-100%. Automatic metrics fare dramatically worse, with rates of at most 20%. Our overall evaluation indicates that published human translations consistently outperform LLM translations, where even the most recent LLMs tend to produce considerably more literal and less diverse translations compared to humans.

Modern BPE tokenisers often split calendar dates into meaningless fragments, e.g., “20250312” → “202”, “503”, “12”, inflating token counts and obscuring the inherent structure needed for robust temporal reasoning. In this work, we (1) introduce a simple yet interpretable metric, termed date fragmentation ratio, that measures how faithfully a tokeniser preserves multi-digit date components; (2) release DateAugBench, a suite of 6500 examples spanning three temporal reasoning tasks: context-based date resolution, format-invariance puzzles, and date arithmetic across historical, contemporary, and future time periods; and (3) through layer-wise probing and causal attention-hop analyses, uncover an emergent date-abstraction mechanism whereby large language models stitch together the fragments of month, day, and year components for temporal reasoning. Our experiments show that excessive fragmentation correlates with accuracy drops of up to 10 points on uncommon dates like historical and futuristic dates. Further, we find that the larger the model, the faster the emergent date abstraction heals date fragments. Lastly, we observe a reasoning path that LLMs follow to assemble date fragments, typically differing from human interpretation (year → month → day).

The impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) has extended into literary domains. However, existing evaluation metrics for literature prioritize mechanical accuracy over artistic expression and tend to overrate machine translation as being superior to human translation from experienced professionals. In the long run, this bias could result in an irreversible decline in translation quality and cultural authenticity. In response to the urgent need for a specialized literary evaluation metric, we introduce LITRANSPROQA, a novel, reference-free, LLM-based question-answering framework designed for literary translation evaluation. LITRANSPROQA integrates humans in the loop to incorporate insights from professional literary translators and researchers, focusing on critical elements in literary quality assessment such as literary devices, cultural understanding, and authorial voice. Our extensive evaluation shows that while literary-finetuned XCOMET-XL yields marginal gains, LITRANSPROQA substantially outperforms current metrics, achieving up to 0.07 gain in correlation and surpassing the best state-of-the-art metrics by over 15 points in adequacy assessments. Incorporating professional translator insights as weights further improves performance, highlighting the value of translator inputs. Notably, LITRANSPROQA reaches an adequacy performance comparable to trained linguistic student evaluators, though it still falls behind experienced professional translators. LITRANSPROQA shows broad applicability to open-source models like LLaMA3.3-70b and Qwen2.5-32b, indicating its potential as an accessible and training-free tool for evaluating literary translations that require local processing due to copyright or ethical considerations.