Transliteration for Low-Resource Translation in the Age of Large Language Models
TL;DR
The findings show that manual transliteration consistently yields the best translation performance, while noisy automatic romanization reduces these gains, and that LLM-based translation can be competitive with, and in some settings outperform, fine-tuned NMT systems, although this advantage comes with lower interpretability.
Abstract
Neural machine translation (NMT) systems are widely used, but their performance remains strongly dependent on the availability of large-scale digital corpora, making translation for low-resource languages a persistent challenge. In parallel, large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for multilingual text generation and translation; however, their behavior in low-resource settings remains largely underexplored. The challenge becomes even more acute for historical languages. Chagatai, a historical Turkic literary language of Central Asia with no native speakers, unstable orthography, and parallel data, represents an extreme case of such a condition. This study investigates whether transliteration significantly affects translation performance and how LLM-based and NMT-based systems compare under an extremely low-resource setting. To address these questions, we evaluated four source-text configurations (original Arabic script, expert manual transliteration, LLM-based transliteration, and rule-based Uroman transliteration) for translation into six target languages: Kazakh, English, Uzbek, Uyghur, Turkish, Russian, and Arabic. The results show that manual transliteration consistently yields the best translation performance, while noisy automatic romanization reduces these gains. For model comparison, GPT-4o was assessed alongside two fine-tuned NMT baselines, NLLB and TranslateGemma. The findings further show that LLM-based translation can be competitive with, and in some settings outperform, fine-tuned NMT systems, although this advantage comes with lower interpretability. Overall, these findings show that, for extremely low-resource historical languages written in non-Latin scripts, source-side representation is a decisive factor and may be as important as the choice of translation model itself.