The study evaluates whether a single confidence threshold in typed decision interfaces treats all languages equally. Using 1,000 items in 51 languages across three vendors, it finds that English consistently achieves higher coverage—clearing the 0.9 threshold 8.6–11.7 percentage points more often than other languages—despite similar accuracy. Even when thresholds are re‑weighted or calibrated per language, the gap persists, and translating inputs into English reduces but does not eliminate it. The authors recommend reporting per‑language coverage at the operating threshold.
arXiv:2609.37861v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the Global South, the lower-income countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America where most of the world's languages are spoken, a deployed text cl...
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
arXiv:2610.35423v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Operator manuals of agricultural implements are delivered in many languages, and the standards require that competent persons review every translation,...
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
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...
arXiv:2608. 13695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users.
The study investigates how exposing large language models to Arabic translations of English benchmark tasks can hide data contamination from standard English-only detection methods. By testing four instruction-tuned models with increasing Arabic exposure, the authors find that traditional probes like TS-Guessing and Min-K%++ fail to detect contamination, yet English performance still improves. They propose a new Translation-Aware Contamination Detection (TACD) method that uses cross-lingual consistency and choice reordering to reveal contamination effects that are otherwise invisible to English-only diagnostics.
The paper investigates whether lower stereotype bias scores in multilingual language models truly indicate greater fairness. By auditing ten open models across eight languages, the authors show that lower average scores often arise from translation artifacts rather than genuine bias reduction, as item‑level correlations between English and translated scores are weak. They also identify pipeline errors that can mask bias signals and provide code to replicate their findings.
arXiv:2610.32144v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a language model is asked whether its own answer is correct, three languages are involved: that of the question, that requested for the answer, an...
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.
arXiv:2605. 25420v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model safety evaluation remains heavily English-centered, leaving low-resource languages under-measured even when models are deployed globally.