AI translation of literary texts is "fine", but readers still prefer human translations

Yves Ferstler, Adam Podoxin, Ty Brassington, Roman Grundkiewicz, Maite Taboada, Marzena Karpinska · Jun 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Human Eval Llm As Judge Multilingual Pairwise Preference

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers experience it in terms of immersiveness and literary effect, aspects poorly captured by automatic machine translation metrics or human evaluation targeting fluency and adequacy. We ask 15 avid readers to compare recently published human translations (HT) to machine translations (MT) generated with an agentic large language model (LLM)-based pipeline, for 15 recent novels in French, Polish, and Japanese and translated into English. Readers evaluated approximately 8K-word excerpts in two conditions: immersive reading of the whole excerpt (30 comparisons) and close reading of 386 aligned HT-MT chunk pairs (772 comparisons), with two readers per book and in alternating order of presentation. Overall, readers find MT "fine", but prefer HT (slightly at excerpt-level 19/30, more clearly at chunk-level 522/772) for its ease, clarity, and immersive nature. Readers' highlights show that MT's quality varies more within one book than HT's does. Crucially, readers cannot reliably tell the two apart (17/30 guess correctly) and tend to prefer the version they believe to be human. Automatic metrics, including LLM-as-a-judge approaches, fail to recover reader preferences and favor MT. We release LAIT (Literary AI Translation), a reader-centered evaluation dataset with 1K reader comments, 2K judgments and preference ratings, and 7.2K span-level annotations, along with our evaluation protocol and supporting interface.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

69/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 65%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.