Reclamation of saline-alkali land requires management plans that account for soil and water conditions, treatment evidence, and financial constraints. This study develops Wenyao, an agricultural decision-support system integrating domain adaptation with retrieval-augmented generation. A bilingual corpus of 8,664 research papers was processed using a 110-indicator schema to construct SA-Bench, comprising 4,860 paper-level planning instances. A QwQ-32B model was adapted through low-rank supervised fine-tuning and combined with case retrieval for budget-conditioned planning. Evidence extraction achieved an F1-score of 0.83 on 300 expert-annotated papers. Without retrieval, Wenyao achieved 95.83% accuracy on 936 source-disjoint multiple-choice questions, compared with 87.93% for the strongest general-purpose baseline; removing explanatory supervision reduced accuracy to 89.42%. Matched-evidence comparisons across 69 region-budget cases supported complementary contributions from adaptation and retrieval. In a blind assessment by 31 experts, Wenyao with retrieval obtained the highest mean scores for objectives and projected outcomes, whereas GPT-5 scored highest for cost estimates. These findings support literature-informed reclamation planning with professional review, while ongoing field monitoring will assess soil and crop responses.
Large Language Models for Machine Translation Quality Annotation: Humans and Models Are Both Challenged
Hala Almaghout, Christian Federmann, Qin Gao
AI 速览：该研究比较LLM与人类标注者在MQM和ESA两种机器翻译质量评估方案上的一致性，发现两者在不同方案、语言对和领域间差异显著，多数设置下仍不可靠。
Large Language Models (LLMs) are considered to be a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to human judgment for Machine Translation (MT) evaluation. With MT evaluation spanning a large number of language pairs, domains and levels of annotation granularity, LLMs must be thoroughly evaluated across these dimensions before being reliably used as alternatives to human evaluation. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of LLMs for two prominent MT quality evaluation schemes: Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA) by comparing their agreement with human annotators. We present results on a long-context test set of 70 language pairs and the publicly available WMT23 and WMT25 data, investigating both score and error span annotation agreement across a variety of language pairs and domains. Our results show that while LLM agreement with human annotators exceeds agreement between human annotators for some evaluation tasks, both vary substantially across annotation schemes, language pairs and domains and remain unreliable for most settings. Furthermore, we identify challenges facing both human and LLM annotators: humans are particularly challenged by fine-grained MQM annotations and low-resource language pairs, while LLMs struggle with minor errors, wrong language variants and error span annotation. Our results highlight the potential for improvement for both human and LLM annotation performance, possibly through human-LLM collaborative annotation pipelines that address the reliability issues identified in this work.