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

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.

Emotion Profiling in LLM-Based Literary Translation: Systematic Shifts Across MT and Post-Editing

This paper investigates whether LLM translations exhibit identifiable emotional profiles and how post-editing reshapes them toward human-like norms. We compare LLM translations of Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake with their post-edited versions and a human translation, using a large-scale corpus of contemporary Italian science-fiction as a baseline. We examine emotion through lexicon-based and multilingual modeling, conducting a fine-grained analysis of emotional variation across systems. We find that MT systems introduce model-specific and statistically significant emotional fingerprints across translations, leading to a limited preservation of an author's voice.

Better Literary Translation: A Multi-Aspect Data Generation and LLM Training Approach

Literary translation poses unique challenges due to the scarcity of high-quality annotated data and the need to balance expression fluency with literary effect. We present a multi-aspect iterative refinement framework that generates high-quality translation references and preference data through specialized LLM translators, each targeting a distinct quality dimension. We leverage the generated data for supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Experiments show that our generated references outperform the original ground truth for SFT by 8.65 CEA100 points. For reinforcement learning, we find that DPO leads to performance degradation in this setting, while leveraging an explicit reward model for GRPO yields an additional 1.51 point improvement. We attribute this to the stability of two-stage training and GRPO's online exploration capability. Our resulting models, LitMT-8B and LitMT-14B, achieve 67.25 and 69.07 CEA100 respectively on the MetaphorTrans English-to-Chinese literary translation benchmark, competitive with Claude Sonnet 4.5 at 68.43, and demonstrate strong generalization to out-of-domain literary work (i.e., O. Henry).

Metaphors in Literary Post-Editing: Opening Pandora's Box?

This paper investigates how post-editors of literary texts react and respond to the way metaphors have been translated by Neu ral Machine Translation (NMT) and Large Language Models (LLMs). The results show that one in three metaphors in the output were changed by the post-editors, demonstrating that the translation of fig urative language is indeed problematic in literary MT (LitMT). The responses indi cate that the post-editors were aware of overly literal translations, though mostly for multiword expressions. Moreover, at times they found it difficult to determine whether solutions were acceptable. They rated the overall quality of the MT out put as quite poor and stated that the post editing was more work and more effort than it would have been translating from scratch. This supports previous studies ar guing that post-editing constrains transla tors in their creativity and diminishes their sense of text ownership.