arXiv AI By Ahmed Haj Ahmed, Ruochen Zhang, Alvin Grissom II

Disentangling Linguistic Relatedness from Task Alignment in Cross-Lingual Transfer

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 19346v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We study cross-lingual transfer by fine-tuning seven large language models (4B--671B parameters) on Arabic and evaluating zero-shot reading comprehension on Semitic languages and non-Semitic controls.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Cross-Lingual Alignment Without Joint Training: Do Monolingual Language Models Converge on Universal Representations?

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
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 Computation and Language
Sep 2

Bridging the English-Arabic Medical Knowledge Gap: Targeted Low-Rank Adaptation via Causal Layer Selection

arXiv:2608.00207v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) perform strongly in English medical tasks but degrade substantially in Arabic, a gap widely attributed to limited trai...

By Chaimae Abouzahir, Musa Khan, Hala Ali-Hassan, Congbo Ma, Khaled Saleh, Yousra Sadqi, Jihad Mallat, Walid Al-Eisawi, Nizar Habash, Farah E. Shamout
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 28

Why Better Cross-Lingual Alignment Fails for Better Cross-Lingual Transfer: Case of Encoders

The paper challenges the assumption that improving cross‑lingual alignment automatically enhances cross‑lingual transfer. Using XLM‑R models aligned on token, sentence, and masked‑language‑modeling objectives across four language pairs, the authors evaluate zero‑shot transfer on part‑of‑speech tagging and sentence classification. They find that embedding‑based alignment metrics poorly predict downstream performance and that alignment and task gradients are often nearly orthogonal, especially when operating at different representational levels.

By Yana Veitsman, Yihong Liu, Hinrich Sch\"utze