Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42475311›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Textual overlap rather than domain alignment: A comparative study of fine-tuning strategies for specialised machine translation with large language models.

Lixue Yang, Jiaxin Zhu, Zengxin Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lixue YangSchool of Foreign Languages, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0219-5065
Jiaxin ZhuSchool of Foreign Languages, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, China.
Zengxin ZhangSchool of Foreign Languages, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) may struggle in specialised machine translation, but the conditions under which fine-tuning improves translation performance remain unclear. This study compares full-parameter fine-tuning (FPFT) and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) for Chinese-English political discourse translation using a purpose-built corpus and the Qwen3-14B model. Translation performance was assessed on three 50-item test sets using BLEU, ROUGE-L F1, METEOR, and BERTScore F1, together with BLEU pass-rate likelihood-ratio G2 tests, paired t-tests, and paired Cohen's dz for item-level score differences. The results reveal a clear contrast between unseen in-domain evaluation, maximum-overlap benchmarking, and semantically related but non-fine-tuned evaluation. On Test Set A and Test Set C, neither fine-tuning strategy produced a statistically significant BLEU pass-rate advantage over the base model, and paired tests across the continuous metrics did not show consistent fine-tuning gains. On Test Set B, which was sampled from the fine-tuning corpus, both fine-tuned models substantially outperformed the base model across all four metrics, with FPFT achieving the highest scores and PEFT providing a more computationally efficient alternative. These findings indicate that textual overlap between training and deployment data, rather than broad domain similarity alone, strongly conditions the observed benefit of fine-tuning. The study offers an empirically grounded framework for selecting fine-tuning strategies in specialised machine translation.

Indexed as

TranslatingHumansLarge Language ModelsSemantics

Identifiers

PMID42475311
PMCPMC13384323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.