The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.
By Xiulin Yang, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Catherine Arnett
arXiv:2608.27813v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Structural probes were introduced by Hewitt and Manning to reconstruct syntactic trees from a neural language model's latent representations. They are...
By Juan Pablo Vigneaux, Mary Kennedy, Khalil Iskarous, Robert Frank, Matilde Marcolli
The paper investigates why large language models sometimes hallucinate when asked about facts in a language different from the one in which the facts were learned. By training small Transformer models on synthetic multilingual datasets, the authors show that the degree of correlation between facts and their learning language (informativeness) and the ease of language identification (extractability) determine whether models develop unified or separate representations across languages. Unified representations enable cross‑lingual fact transfer, while separate representations do not. The study proposes a unifying perspective on cross‑lingual transfer and suggests training methods to promote representational unification.
By Carter Blum, Katja Filippova, Ann Yuan, Asma Ghandeharioun, Julian Zimmert, Fred Zhang, Jessica Hoffmann, Tal Linzen, Martin Wattenberg, Lucas Dixon, Mor Geva
arXiv:2510.01030v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: The human ability to translate diverse perceptual and linguistic inputs into structured behavior has been thought to rest on learning robust repres...
By Zach Studdiford, Timothy T. Rogers, Kushin Mukherjee, Siddharth Suresh
arXiv:2608.03446v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Multilingual large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform better on non-English classification tasks when the representations of the giv...
By Adnan Al Ali, Kathy H\"ammerl, Jind\v{r}ich Libovick\'y, Alexander Fraser
The study compares an English-only and a bilingual decoder-only model, each 310 M parameters, trained on eight diverse languages while controlling for English exposure, compute, and document overlap. After aligning on shared English vocabulary, the authors find that token embeddings appear similar, but the deeper hidden states used for prediction diverge across models. This hidden‑state mismatch grows through middle transformer layers and persists despite controls, indicating that contextual processing differs between the models.
"whyItMatters":"The findings show that embedding alignment can conceal significant internal representation differences, which is crucial for any downstream work that assumes aligned multilingual models are interchangeable."
By Anjishnu Mukherjee, Ziwei Zhu, Antonios Anastasopoulos
The paper extends mechanistic interpretability of large language models by modeling concepts as low‑dimensional non‑linear manifolds rather than linear subspaces. It introduces a concept‑based alignment (CBA) score to compare these manifolds across layers and models, revealing block structures in intermediate layers, a shift from syntax‑dominated to mixed syntactic‑semantic concepts, and training‑dependent multilingual sharing. The study also shows that alignment patterns differ across model families and training stages, with adjacent stages aligning more closely than distant ones.
By Tido Specht, Elias Benedict Krey, Nils Neukirch, Nils Strodthoff
The study investigates whether monolingual language models, trained without joint multilingual objectives, develop cross-lingual alignment. By evaluating models such as Goldfish and independently built monolingual systems, the authors find that alignable representational geometry emerges across layers, strengthening with larger data, larger models, or closer linguistic proximity. A single Procrustes rotation on parallel sentences can map hidden states between models, and applying this rotation to a German model’s residuals swaps factual predictions to those of the donor English model, demonstrating functional transfer.
By Ej Zhou, Suchir Salhan, Catherine Arnett, Anna Korhonen
The paper proposes the interlingua hypothesis, suggesting that large language models translate by encoding a source sentence into a latent, task‑agnostic feature space and then decoding a target sentence from that space. Three lines of evidence support this: (1) BLEU variance across language pairs is largely explained by language‑specific competences without pair‑specific interactions; (2) many model components influence both monolingual and translation tasks; and (3) fine‑tuning on monolingual data recovers most translation gains seen with aligned documents. These findings converge to support the hypothesis and point toward new ways to understand and improve LLM translation.
By Jacob Brinton, Jannik Brinkmann, Mark Crovella, Aaron Mueller
arXiv:2607. 19243v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.
By Alexander Manev
The paper investigates whether different latent language probes—GMM-based representation probes and decoding-based probes—measure the same phenomenon in multilingual language models. Across various model families, training regimes, domains, tasks, checkpoints, and up to 27 languages, the authors find systematic disagreement: representation probes indicate earlier cross‑lingual mixing, while decoding probes reveal sharper, English‑biased language signals. These differences correlate with model multilinguality and training progression but remain relatively stable across domains, suggesting that current probes capture distinct aspects of multilingual processing rather than a single internal lingua franca.
By Deniz Bayazit, Badr AlKhamissi, Antoine Bosselut
arXiv:2605.25263v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Current language modeling approaches are built around tokens. Text corpora are split into tokens, and models are trained by performing comput...
By Elio Musacchio, Lucia Siciliani, Pierpaolo Basile