Do LLMs Truly Benefit from Longer Context in Automatic Post-Editing?

Ahrii Kim, Seong-heum Kim · Jan 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Human Eval

Open arXiv Open DOI Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Automatic post-editing (APE) aims to refine machine translations by correcting residual errors. Although recent large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong translation capabilities, their effectiveness for APE--especially under document-level context--remains insufficiently understood. We present a systematic comparison of proprietary and open-weight LLMs under a naive document-level prompting setup, analyzing APE quality, contextual behavior, robustness, and efficiency. Our results show that proprietary LLMs achieve near human-level APE quality even with simple one-shot prompting, regardless of whether document context is provided. While these models exhibit higher robustness to data poisoning attacks than open-weight counterparts, this robustness also reveals a limitation: they largely fail to exploit document-level context for contextual error correction. Furthermore, standard automatic metrics do not reliably reflect these qualitative improvements, highlighting the continued necessity of human evaluation. Despite their strong performance, the substantial cost and latency overheads of proprietary LLMs render them impractical for real-world APE deployment. Overall, our findings elucidate both the promise and current limitations of LLM-based document-aware APE, and point toward the need for more efficient long-context modeling approaches for translation refinement.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
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 is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

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.