README.md

metadata

pretty_name: 'LTB-AI: AI-drafted Chinese→English items for the Last Translation Benchmark'
language:
  - zh
  - en
task_categories:
  - translation
tags:
  - machine-translation
  - adversarial-evaluation
  - llm-as-a-judge
  - chinese
  - synthetic
  - benchmark-construction
annotations_creators:
  - machine-generated
language_creators:
  - machine-generated
size_categories:
  - n<1K
configs:
  - config_name: all_models
    default: true
    data_files: ltb_all_models.jsonl
  - config_name: validation
    data_files: ltb_validation.jsonl

LTB-AI: AI-drafted Chinese→English items for the Last Translation Benchmark

452 short Chinese source texts, each with a reference ("perfect") English translation and 1–2 atomic pass/fail verification rules, drafted by an LLM pipeline in the format of the Last Translation Benchmark (LTB) — a benchmark that collects inputs major translation systems still get wrong.

What makes this dataset more than a list of hard sentences: every item carries the output of 14 translation systems from three providers, plus a separate LLM judgement of every rule for every output (6,327 translations, 8,608 rule judgements) and one line of judge reasoning per rule. So it is usable both as a small adversarial MT test set and as a record of how often an automated difficulty-hunting pipeline actually produces difficult items — it mostly does not: 45 of 452 items (10%) defeat all 14 systems, while 204 (45%) are solved by all 14.

• Code / pipeline: github.com/OLAResearch/LTB-AI
• Write-up of the experiment: olaresearch.org/jis/blog/LTB-AI
• The benchmark this follows: last-translation-benchmark.vilda.net (its human-curated dataset is a separate artifact: zouhar/last-translation-benchmark)

These items were never submitted to the official LTB. The portal's checking tools were used only to measure this pipeline's output against a roster we do not run ourselves. Nothing here is part of the official benchmark.

Files and configs

File	Rows	Contents
ltb_all_models.jsonl	452	The full candidate pool: item, reference, rules, 14 translators' outputs, per-rule verdicts, judge reasoning, curator verdict
ltb_validation.jsonl	45	The subset that defeated all 14 translators, plus results from the official portal's 11-system checking tool
strict_passes_all_models.md	—	Human-readable rendering of the submittable items (not a data file)

Both configs have a single train split.

from datasets import load_dataset

pool = load_dataset("OLAResearchX/LTB-AI", "all_models", split="train")
checked = load_dataset("OLAResearchX/LTB-AI", "validation", split="train")

A few keys are absent on most rows (curator_override on 3 rows, missing_models on 1, and the portal's per-system fields on the 4 unchecked submissions). If a loader that infers the schema from the first rows gives you trouble, pass explicit features or read the lines directly:

import pandas as pd
pool = pd.read_json("ltb_all_models.jsonl", lines=True)

Data fields

all_models

Field	Type	Description
id	string	Stable item id, mechanism-prefixed (DEFECT-15, ADDR-04, …)
date	string	Draft date (2026-09-02 or 2026-09-03)
source	string	Chinese source text. Median 19 characters, range 5–61
source_lang / target_lang	string	Always zh / en
perfect_translation	string	The reference translation the rules were written against
verification_rules	list[string]	1–2 atomic checks ("Check whether …"). 615 rules total: 289 items with 1, 163 with 2
n_rules	int	len(verification_rules)
mechanism_en / mechanism_zh	string	The linguistic mechanism targeted, e.g. Formal register: legal terminology. 251 distinct labels; splitting at the colon gives 38 families
translators	list[string]	The 14 model ids probed for this item
providers	dict[str, str]	translator id → anthropic / google / openai
judges	dict[str, str]	translator id → the judge that scored it (claude-opus-5 or google:gemini-3.7-flash)
model_outputs	dict[str, str]	translator id → its English translation
model_passed_each_rule	dict[str, list[bool]]	translator id → one verdict per rule, aligned with verification_rules
model_passed_rules	dict[str, bool]	translator id → all() of the above. A model passes an item only if it satisfies every rule
judge_reasons	dict[str, list[string]]	translator id → one sentence of judge reasoning per rule
n_translators_passed / n_translators_total	int	Pass count over the full roster (total is 14 for 451 items, 13 for DEFECT-15)
n_claude_passed / n_claude_total	int	The same over the 4 Claude translators only
family_pass	dict[str, {passed,total}]	Pass counts grouped by provider
candidate_verdict	string	Curator's call — see below
notes	string	Free-text curator note (present on 362 items, empty elsewhere)
curator_override	string	On 3 items only: why the item is held back regardless of the scores
missing_models	list[string]	On DEFECT-15 only: ["gemini-2.5-pro"], the one translator×item cell never collected

candidate_verdict is computed over the Claude roster only (4 models), which is a historical artifact of the pipeline's order and the field most likely to mislead:

Verdict	Items	Meaning
strict_pass	75	No Claude translator passed
marginal_pass	37	Exactly one did
rejected	340	Two or more did — or the item carries a curator_override

For any difficulty judgement, prefer n_translators_passed over n_translators_total. The two views disagree by construction: 30 of the 75 strict_pass items are solved by a Gemini or GPT model.

validation

Same item fields (minus candidate_verdict / notes / family_pass), plus submission_index, curator_notes, and a portal object holding the official checking tool's results — a roster of 11 systems (Lara, Google Translate, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemma 4, Llama 4 Maverick, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-5.6 Sol, Deepseek V4 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3.8 Flash, Claude Haiku 4.5), most of which were never run locally:

portal.status, portal.checked_on, portal.translators, portal.model_outputs, portal.rule_results (per-rule bools per system), portal.n_translators_passed / n_translators_total, portal.passed_translators, portal.notes, portal.summary, and portal.reference_echoes / missing_verdicts / failed_rules / reviewer_comments (sparse).

How the data was built

1. Draft — an LLM writes the source, the reference translation and the verification rules, aiming at a named mechanism. All Chinese sources are model-authored, not collected from users or the web.
2. Probe (Claude) — 4 Claude translators (Sonnet 5, Opus 4.5, Sonnet 4.5, Haiku 4.5), each rule judged in its own call by Claude Opus 5.
3. Probe (rest) — 10 Gemini / Gemma / GPT translators, each rule judged in its own call by Gemini 3.7 Flash.
4. Select — the 45 items that no translator passed went to the portal's checking tool.

Rules are judged one call each, because judging several together invites the judge to average over them.

Results worth knowing before you use it

Pass rate over all 452 items, per translator:

Translator	Pass rate		Translator	Pass rate
gemini-3.8-flash	80%		gemma-4-26b-a4b-it	75%
gemini-3.7-flash	79%		gemma-4-31b-it	75%
gemini-2.5-flash	79%		claude-opus-4-5	73%
gemini-3.5-flash	79%		gemini-3.5-flash-lite	73%
gemini-3.6-flash	78%		claude-sonnet-4-5	71%
gpt-5.6-luna	76%		claude-sonnet-5	70%
gemini-2.5-pro	76%		claude-haiku-4-5-20251001	62%

Model size and generation buy little here, and failures overlap heavily across the roster — every pair of the 14 systems shares 71–110 of its failures, so items are hard for the field rather than for one model.

Difficulty is very unevenly distributed across mechanism families. Share of items defeating all 14 translators:

Family	All-fail		Family	All-fail
Source-defect fidelity	13/23		Regional dialect	3/13
Taboo homophony	8/16		Cultural knowledge	2/11
Politeness bias	5/42		Coined abstract noun	2/49
Pragmatic self-reference	3/23		Formal register	3/123

Formal register is 27% of everything drafted and almost never works: "make it very formal" is not a difficulty mechanism for current models. What survives is fidelity to who is speaking — misspellings, dialect, an unpunctuated message home, a lay petitioner's officialese — which every system tidies into fluent standard English.

Of the 45 items taken to the portal's 11-system checking tool (41 checked, credits ran out):

portal.status	Items	Meaning
passed	34	Cleared LTB's bar — at most 2 of 11 systems passed
disputed	6	Invalid: our own reference translation failed the rules written for it
failed	1	Over the bar — 3 of 11 systems passed
not_checked	4	Never run

The disputed items are the most instructive failure in the pipeline: LTB judges the reference alongside the systems, and a rule the reference itself cannot meet is a broken rule, not a hard item.

Limitations and bias

• Two judges, one dataset. The Claude column was judged by Claude Opus 5 and the rest by Gemini 3.7 Flash. Rankings within a provider group are measured; the gap between groups is indicative only. Opus 5 is also a family member of the Claude translators it scores.
• Judge calibration is worth about 10%. Re-judging unchanged translations moved 58 of 550 verdicts (50 stricter, 8 more lenient). Treat single-rule verdicts as noisy labels.
• Our roster overstates difficulty. ADDR-REG-01 was 0/14 locally and 3/11 on the portal. Expect the same direction of error for any item here.
• Rules can be wrong. 6 of 41 portal-checked items had rules their own reference failed, and the portal flagged rules that most systems pass as poor benchmark rules.
• Coverage is uneven. Formal register holds 123 items while 16 of 38 families hold four or fewer. Per-family rates on small families are pointers, not measurements.
• Everything is model-generated, including the sources, references, rules and the analysis in the repository README — with only light human verification. Expect residual errors in individual items.
• Short, single-utterance Chinese only. Median 19 characters; no document-level context, no other language pair.
• Contamination. This is a public dataset of known-hard inputs. Once published, high scores on it may reflect exposure rather than translation ability.
• Offensive content. Some items deliberately target taboo homophony, slurs and regionally offensive address terms; the Taboo homophony family (16 items) contains language that is crude or insulting by design.

Citation

@misc{ltb-ai-2026,
  title  = {LTB-AI: Agentic Pipeline-drafted Chinese--English Items for the Last Translation Benchmark},
  author = {Shaoxiong Ji},
  year   = {2026},
  month  = {September},
  url    = {https://hf.co/datasets/OLAResearchX/LTB-AI},
  note   = {Dataset has not been submitted to the benchmark. Code: https://github.com/OLAResearch/LTB-AI}
}