The paper presents a unified evaluation of cross‑lingual consistency (CLC) enhancement methods for multilingual language models, covering inference‑time interventions and post‑training approaches across three model families and three closed‑form benchmarks. Results indicate that post‑training methods, especially direct distribution alignment, consistently improve CLC across all model‑dataset combinations, while other methods are more sensitive to answer format and language coverage. The study also examines the impact of CLC enhancement on culturally diverse question answering, finding no systematic degradation in controlled settings but occasional accuracy drops in open‑ended generation, particularly for non‑English responses.
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.
arXiv:2605.12515v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multilingual large language models (MLLMs) often answer culturally ambiguous questions inconsistently across languages, even for a fixed user perso...
arXiv:2604.13286v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite the widespread multilingual deployment of large language models, post-training pipelines remain predominantly English-centric, contributing...
arXiv:2605. 31220v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Confidence estimation (CE), i.
The paper compares Knowledge-Graph Based Augmentation (Graph-RAG) with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for answering culturally specific questions. Using the LatamQA dataset, Graph-RAG, built automatically from Wikipedia via KGGen, matches RAG performance and reduces the base LLM’s error by 72% with a standard KG and 78% with a benchmark-aware variant. The approach also transfers zero‑shot to Portuguese, showing multilingual applicability.
arXiv:2608.28405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current cultural evaluations for large language models (LLMs) often reduce culture to single-turn factual recall via MCQs, failing to capture a common...
arXiv:2510. 15551v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Any piece of knowledge is usually expressed in one or a handful of natural languages on the web or in any large corpus.
arXiv:2604. 18347v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision Language Models (VLMs) achieved rapid progress in the recent years.
MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering) is a curated extension of the English BBQ dataset that includes Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, designed to measure stereotypes across these languages while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. The dataset also provides a parallel control set to assess question-answering performance independently of bias. Experiments with several open-source and proprietary LLMs show that non‑English languages can exhibit greater bias than English, and cross‑lingual bias differences persist except in the most accurate models.
Ensuring the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) with diverse cultural values is critical for their safe global deployment. However, existing alignment benchmarks are predominantly English-centr...
The paper audits 51 recent multilingual evaluation benchmarks covering 242 datasets and 219 languages, focusing on coverage, representativeness, and rigor. It finds that while coverage is broad, many languages appear in only one benchmark and entire regions are underrepresented; low‑resource languages face a task equity gap. Representativeness is compromised by heavy reliance on English translations, and rigor is weakened by benchmark contamination and parallel‑corpus overlap. The authors propose concrete recommendations for building evaluation frameworks that are natively constructed, culturally grounded, contamination‑aware, and community‑aligned.
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.