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
The study investigates whether monolingual language models, trained without joint multilingual objectives, develop cross-lingual alignment. By evaluating models such as Goldfish and independently built monolingual systems, the authors find that alignable representational geometry emerges across layers, strengthening with larger data, larger models, or closer linguistic proximity. A single Procrustes rotation on parallel sentences can map hidden states between models, and applying this rotation to a German model’s residuals swaps factual predictions to those of the donor English model, demonstrating functional transfer.
By Ej Zhou, Suchir Salhan, Catherine Arnett, Anna Korhonen
The paper extends mechanistic interpretability of large language models by modeling concepts as low‑dimensional non‑linear manifolds rather than linear subspaces. It introduces a concept‑based alignment (CBA) score to compare these manifolds across layers and models, revealing block structures in intermediate layers, a shift from syntax‑dominated to mixed syntactic‑semantic concepts, and training‑dependent multilingual sharing. The study also shows that alignment patterns differ across model families and training stages, with adjacent stages aligning more closely than distant ones.
By Tido Specht, Elias Benedict Krey, Nils Neukirch, Nils Strodthoff
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
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
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