arXiv Computation and Language

A Universal Vibe? Finding and Controlling Language-Agnostic Informal Register with SAEs

arXiv AI
Aug 28

Beyond the Rosetta Stone: Unification Forces in Generalization Dynamics

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 Machine Learning
Aug 27

The Dialect Tax: Dialectal Biases Persist throughout the Language Modeling Pipeline

The study investigates why language models exhibit systematic performance gaps across English dialects, a phenomenon termed the "dialect tax." Using parallel dialect corpora that preserve meaning while altering surface form, the authors confirm that models treat Standard American English and dialectal texts as semantically equivalent, yet find representational disparities that persist through tokenization, pre‑training, post‑training, and inference. Even a character‑level tokenizer does not eliminate input/output asymmetries or accuracy gaps, and dialect pairs produce more divergent gradient updates than unrelated Standard texts, indicating that dialectal content is harder for models to learn.

By Elle
arXiv AI
2d ago

Lingua Franca or Probing Artifact? Rethinking Latent Language in Multilingual LLMs

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.

By Deniz Bayazit, Badr AlKhamissi, Antoine Bosselut
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Double Trouble: Bilingual Pretraining Leaves Language-Conditioned Effects in Shared-Language Representations

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
arXiv AI
Aug 24

MGAL: A Multilingual Granularity-Aware Long-Context Benchmark

MGAL is a new multilingual benchmark for evaluating long‑context large language models, built from United Nations reports in six official UN languages and covering 8K to 128K tokens. It tests four linguistic granularities—word, sentence, paragraph, and document—while also stratifying examples by their position within the document (begin, middle, end). Experiments show that models excel at word‑level tasks but struggle with coarser granularity, and that closed‑source models outperform others in lower‑resource languages, revealing challenges such as local semantic crowding and a fluency‑consistency gap.

By Chunhan Li, Chenglin Xu, Zongyang Zhang, Jiale Liu, Zhuoxi Rao, Xudong Jia, Junxiu He, Menglin Yang, Wenjuan Gong, Zhengzhe Liu, Chengwei Qin
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

One Form to Transfer Them All: Pretraining Multilingual Language Models Beyond Native Orthography

The study evaluates how different input representations—orthographic text, IPA transcription, and romanization—affect cross‑lingual transfer in autoregressive multilingual language models. Across three model sizes and eight languages grouped into typologically motivated pairs, romanized pretraining consistently outperforms native orthography and IPA, especially as model scale increases. Fine‑tuning a text‑pretrained model on romanized data can harm performance on languages already covered by the base model, suggesting romanization should be integrated at pretraining rather than applied later.

By Muge Zhang, Aaron Jencks, Krishna Badikela, Yulia Tsvetkov, Sachin Kumar
arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago

Latent Mechanisms of Language Control in Multilingual Language Models

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