Large language models show strong cross‑lingual abilities, but previous studies have examined them only at isolated training points. This work pretrains a 1.7B multilingual model on nine languages, recording checkpoints at fine granularity to track translation development. Using word‑level translation and a new dataset, the authors find that early learning is dominated by token‑level copying and surface similarities, while later stages involve more general translation mechanisms and refined copying.
By Felicia K\"orner, Maria Matveev, Florian Eichin, Gitta Kutyniok, Barbara Plank, Michael A. Hedderich
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
arXiv:2609.01356v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multilingual large language models (mLLMs) achieve strong performance in machine translation, yet our understanding of the mechanisms by which they tra...
By Mikhail Sonkin, Tanja Baeumel, Daniil Gurgurov, Josef van Genabith, Simon Ostermann
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
arXiv:2604. 03532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show strong multilingual capabilities, yet reliably controlling the language of their outputs remains difficult.
By Sing Hieng Wong, Hassan Sajjad, A. B. Siddique
arXiv:2608.28860v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often answer the same factual question differently across languages. We study whether cross-lingual latent-space intervent...
By Faeze Ghorbanpour, Constanza Fierro, Alexander Fraser, Anders Sogaard
The paper investigates whether adding Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) data to large language models (LLMs) improves performance on downstream tasks. By reproducing recent studies and applying a consistent hyperparameter protocol, the authors find that text-only baselines match or surpass AMR-augmented models. A perplexity-based probe shows that AMR does not provide LLMs with additional relational knowledge, suggesting no clear benefit from AMR augmentation.
By Hoa Quynh Nhung Nguyen, Jacopo Staiano, Michael Sullivan
The paper investigates whether sparse autoencoder (SAE) features that recur across different language settings in Gemma 2 and Gemma 3 actually have consistent causal effects on translation performance. By reproducing Wu et al.’s discovery method and extending it to multilingual prompts, the authors find over 20 frequently activating features, yet causal validation reveals that almost all have negligible or inconsistent impacts. Only one feature—Gemma 2’s (L10, 5717) and Gemma 3’s (L20, 2456)—consistently improves COMET scores when amplified and worsens them when ablated across 23 language settings, indicating a language‑agnostic translation‑initiation direction.
By Giang Son Nguyen, Nhi Ngoc-Yen Nguyen, Wray Buntine, Dung D. Le
arXiv:2605. 31220v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Confidence estimation (CE), i.
By Athina Kyriakou, Dennis Ulmer, Ivan Titov
arXiv:2602.02326v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: If multilingual language model representations contain separable language-associated structure, then shifting between languages may require only si...
By Neeraja Kirtane, Kuan-Hao Huang
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:2510. 05678v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable progress in multilingual settings, their performance remains uneven across languages as LLMs often rely on English-centric latent representations.
By Haneul Yoo, Jiho Jin, Kyunghyun Cho, Alice Oh