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
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
The paper investigates weight‑space merging of independently fine‑tuned multilingual machine translation models. Experiments show that merging is more successful when models share a target language, yet it still cannot match the peak performance of language‑specific checkpoints. When target languages differ, performance drops sharply, and analysis reveals that overlapping neuron activation and incompatible upper‑layer geometries cause these failures.
By Baban Gain, Trilok Nath Singh, Asif Ekbal
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) fail to transfer knowledge across languages. By pretraining 360M- and 7B-parameter models, the authors show that poor cross‑lingual generalization arises during pretraining and persists despite standard fixes. Using a controlled bilingual setup with identical text but disjoint token spaces, they demonstrate that token disjointness alone causes knowledge compartmentalization, and that mapping languages into a shared token space via word‑wise translation markedly improves cross‑lingual performance, recovering up to 12.6% of native‑language learning efficiency.
By Adam Gaber, Uriel Dolev, Elisabeth Fittschen, Bobby Cheng, Yuval Marton, Leshem Choshen
arXiv:2607. 04814v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Extending automatic speech recognition (ASR) to low-resource African languages is constrained by the prohibitive demands of data collection at scale.
By Andrei Florian, Cynthia Jayne Amol, Hope Kerubo Ombaba, Xiaoyu Cui, Boniface Mwau, Biatus Maina Kamau, Lilian Diana Awuor Wanzare, Christiane Fellbaum, Happy Buzaaba
arXiv:2604.13286v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Despite the widespread multilingual deployment of large language models, post-training pipelines remain predominantly English-centric, contributing...
By Mehak Dhaliwal, Shashwat Chaurasia, Yao Qin, Dezhi Hong, Thomas Butler
arXiv:2608. 07629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual neural machine translation models such as NLLB-200 cover 200 languages but leave thousands unsupported, including most Grassfields Bantu languages of Cameroon.
By Samiratu Ntohsi, Neza David Tuyishimire, Anesu Kafesu, Marvin Ogore, Samuel Oluwajunwonlo Babalola, Oche Ankeli
The paper investigates how many languages should be jointly trained in a single lexical normalization model. Using a fixed-capacity character-level model across twelve languages, it finds that accuracy peaks when a language is trained with only a few others—typically one to four—and then declines sharply as more languages are added, dropping about forty percent. A control experiment keeping total training data constant shows the decline is due to competition for model capacity rather than data scarcity, and no reliable typological rule predicts the optimal number of co‑training languages.
By Saman Rahbar
arXiv:2609.22633v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Bilingual language models (LMs) offer a controlled setting for studying how training conditions shape second-language (L2) behaviour, but prior work ty...
By Suchir Salhan, Catherine Arnett, James Michaelov, Paula Buttery
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:2605.29637v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models often exhibit a substantial gap between their performance in English and in lower-resourced languages on equivalent knowledge...
By Debajyoti Mazumder, Divyansh Pathak, Prashant Kodali, Aditya Joshi, Akshay Agarwal, Jasabanta Patro
arXiv:2510.27183v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: The URIEL+ linguistic knowledge base supports multilingual research by encoding languages through geographic, genetic, and typological vectors. How...
By Mason Shipton, York Hay Ng, Aditya Khan, Phuong Hanh Hoang, Xiang Lu, A. Seza Do\u{g}ru\"oz, En-Shiun Annie Lee