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. 12334v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite the impressive multilingual capabilities of Large Language Models, the latent dynamics dictating language selection remain poorly understood.
By Arnav Srivastav
The paper investigates how multilingual large language models can unintentionally switch languages during generation. It compares three techniques—ValSel, FreqSel, and AnnSel—for pinpointing latent variables that control language choice in cross‑layer transcoders. Using new multilingual benchmarks and targeted interventions on Gemma‑2‑2B and Qwen3‑4B, the study finds all methods can steer output language, with FreqSel performing best and AnnSel providing interpretable selections via explicit annotations.
By Ryo Mitsuhashi, Sabri Boughorbel, Majd Hawasly
arXiv:2609.08322v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Multilingual LLMs show stereotype-related behavior that varies across languages, but behavioral scores do not show where the relevant information is...
By Ariun-Erdene Tumurchuluun, Yusser Al Ghussin, Pinzhen Chen, Josef van Genabith, Koel Dutta Chowdhury
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
The paper investigates how multilingual large language models (LLMs) encode and express stereotypes across different languages. By applying linear probing, attribution patching, sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and feature ablation to Llama‑3.1‑8B, Qwen3‑8B, and Gemma‑2‑9B, the authors find that probe performance peaks much earlier than attribution, indicating a separation of 36‑53% of model depth. They observe that only a small fraction (6‑18%) of residual‑stream features exhibit language‑agnostic effects, and none are category‑agnostic, highlighting the need to measure decodability, output influence, and cross‑lingual ablation effects separately.
arXiv:2609.07876v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Recent methods in language model interpretability employ techniques such as sparse autoencoders to decompose residual stream contributions into linea...
By Arjun Patrawala, Jiahai Feng, Erik Jones, Jacob Steinhardt
arXiv:2607. 20596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are used to interpret and steer large language models, yet whether a feature's causal role is stable across SAE families remains untested.
By Seonglae Cho, Zekun Wu, Kleyton Da Costa, Rishi Kalra, Ilham Wicaksono, Adriano Koshiyama
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 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:2606. 08365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are increasingly used to steer language models, but feature steering is rarely clean: the same intervention can behave inconsistently across contexts and perturb unrelated features.
By Evan Duan
arXiv:2608. 04021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Cloze-style probes that vary how often a target token appears implicitly assume that more copies of a target affect prediction the same way regardless of where the readout slot sits.
By Han-yu Wang