arXiv preprint ·
When Do Agents Help? Embedding, LLM and Agentic Alignment of Classical Texts and Their Translations
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Classical texts aligned with their translations support machine translation, retrieval and computational research, but evidence comparing alignment workflows is scattered. This study compares seven systems on 452 texts in Pali, Sanskrit, Mishnaic Hebrew and Tibetan, comprising 9,833 human-aligned units: four embedding pipelines, a direct LLM call, an autonomous agent, and the agent revised by an independent auditor. Generative workflows recover 93-94% of reference correspondences, against at most 77% for embeddings. A ceiling analysis shows that sentence boundaries make some references unrepresentable by the embedding pipelines. Reference recovery is similar across generative workflows: the agent's advantage is 0.5 percentage points (95% CI -0.02 to 1.17), and auditing adds no established benefit. Agents nevertheless produce structurally valid output for all 452 texts, against 437 for direct calls. A blinded three-LLM panel assesses every generative mismatch against the source and human reference. Most mismatches are labelled defensible editorial variation; consensus major-error labels cover only 0.06-0.14% of units. The panel labels significantly fewer residual defects for agents than direct calls (0.7% versus 1.4%), suggesting that reference recovery alone understates alignment quality. On ten long Pali discourses taken as published online, agents and audited agents raise recovery from the direct call's 71% to 84% and 92%. Identical reference-located chunks bring all three to 93%. Agents thus improve structural reliability and reduce judged defects on short passages, while their large recovery advantage on long documents disappears after chunking. In this setting, independent auditing offers little measurable additional benefit on prepared passages.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Improving the Diversity of LLM Outputs without a Trade-off
Steering Language Model Goals with Value Transplant
Pinned and Still Unstable: Within-Judge Verdict Variance and the Noise Floor of LLM-as-Judge Leaderboards
Counterexamples to Local Reconstruction Gain as a Proxy for Final Fidelity in Residual Completion
Reading Too Much into Context: Passive Exposure Can Steer LLM Decisions
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.