arXiv:2606. 01800v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have excelled in processing multiple languages through pre- and post-training on multilingual data, even though English dominates the training data.
Large language models (LLMs) have excelled in processing multiple languages through pre- and post-training on multilingual data, even though English dominates the training data. Prior work focusing on token representations has revealed how those LLMs process non-English text.
arXiv:2604.13286v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite the widespread multilingual deployment of large language models, post-training pipelines remain predominantly English-centric, contributing...
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.
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...
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."
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.
arXiv:2607.00890v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Open web-scale pre-training corpora remain concentrated in English, limiting multilingual LLM development. We introduce MultiSynt/MT, an open synth...
The paper explores structural transfer, where models are first trained on non-language data such as music, probabilistic grammars, and cellular automata to induce priors for natural language tasks. This pretraining acts as a weight initialization for multilingual language modeling and leads to lower next-token prediction loss and smaller weight shifts during subsequent language training. However, the improved loss does not consistently translate into better downstream linguistic performance, and the efficiency of non-language data is lower than that of additional language data.
arXiv:2512. 20757v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tokenizers provide the fundamental basis through which text is represented and processed by language models (LMs).
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.
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.
Open web-scale pre-training corpora remain concentrated in English, limiting multilingual LLM development. We introduce MultiSynt/MT, an open synthetic parallel corpus with approximately 4.