The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
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...
arXiv:2606. 14347v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models exhibit strong multilingual capabilities, however, their internal representations are difficult to interpret.
arXiv:2603.08231v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Paralinguistic speech tasks are often considered relatively language-agnostic, as they rely on extralinguistic acoustic cues rather than lexi...
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.
The paper evaluates four metrics—CKA, ANC, GMM dominance per token, and ILO—used to measure cross‑lingual representation sharing in multilingual language models. Across 21 models ranging from 125 M to 14 B parameters, the metrics disagree, and the authors attribute this to anisotropy, where representations cluster in a narrow embedding cone. Only ILO shows a strong, robust correlation with cross‑lingual transfer performance (Spearman’s ρ = 0.90) after controlling for model size, family, and task variation, leading the authors to recommend ILO as the primary metric alongside anisotropy diagnostics.
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.