Estonian WinoGrande Dataset: Comparative Analysis of LLM Performance on Human and Machine Translation
arXiv:2511.17290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In this paper, we present a localized and culturally adapted Estonian translation of the test set from the widely used commonsense reasoning benchmark, WinoGrande. We detail the translation and adaptation process carried out by translation specialists and evaluate the performance of both proprietary and open source models on the human translated benchmark. Additionally, we explore the feasibility of achieving high-quality machine translation by incorporating insights from the manual translation process into the design of a detailed prompt. Th — Marii Ojastu, Hele-Andra Kuulmets, Aleksei Dorkin, Marika Borovikova, Dage S\"arg, Kairit Sirts
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:In this paper, we present a localized and culturally adapted Estonian translation of the test set from the widely used commonsense reasoning benchmark, WinoGrande. We detail the translation and adaptation process carried out by translation specialists and evaluate the performance of both proprietary and open source models on the human translated benchmark. Additionally, we explore the feasibility of achieving high-quality machine translation by incorporating insights from the manual translation process into the design of a detailed prompt. This prompt is specifically tailored to address both the linguistic characteristics of Estonian and the unique translation challenges posed by the WinoGrande dataset. Our findings show that model performance on the human translated Estonian dataset is slightly lower than on the original English test set, while performance on machine-translated data is notably worse. Additionally, our experiments indicate that prompt engineering offers limited improvement in translation quality or model accuracy, and highlight the importance of involving language specialists in dataset translation and adaptation to ensure reliable and interpretable evaluations of language competency and reasoning in large language models.
Comments: LREC 2026
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2511.17290 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2511.17290v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.17290
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Marii Ojastu [view email] [v1] Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:01:57 UTC (68 KB) [v2] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 13:26:58 UTC (78 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv![First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety - UCLA Health
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety UCLA Health
New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation - International Atomic Energy Agency
New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation International Atomic Energy Agency
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 03 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02557-x Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!