Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Fine-tuning large language models on parallel data improves translation quality but can cause catastrophic forgetting. Mitigation methods are generally evaluated by retention on general benchmarks. We ask whether these findings transfer to machine translation (MT) fine-tuning and to MT-specific instruction following (MT-IF): instructions that modify a translation, such as formality, grammatical gender, and length control. We compare methods anchored to auxiliary data, to model outputs, and to the base model parameters, first in a screening study with Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, then on Llama 3.1 8B Instruct fine-tuned on bidirectional Arabic-English or Spanish-English data. Elastic Weight Consolidation preserves general capabilities best in both stages; on the 8B Spanish model the average score on general benchmarks drops 1.7 points versus 11.0 for standard fine-tuning, yet its scores for formality and grammatical gender control remain close to standard fine-tuning. Only data mixing with control-task examples preserves these controls, but its gains do not transfer to unseen prompts for the same task.