arXiv:2609.37882v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Every text classifier for an African language begins with a budgeting question: how many labelled examples are needed, and can labels from other Afri...
By Bhanu Prakash Vangala, Sowmya Guda, Navya Vangala
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
By Tom\'a\v{s} Burkert, Angelika Peljak-{\L}api\'nska, David Zelen\'y
arXiv:2606. 24460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Commercial large language models bill, scale latency, and budget context per token.
By Olaoye Anthony Somide
arXiv:2608. 13695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users.
By Chialuka Prisca-Mary Onuoha, Bright Etornam Sunu, Rashidat Sikiru
The paper shows that HuggingFace’s ByteLevel pre‑tokenizer, which treats a word as a sequence of Unicode letters, splits abugida scripts at every vowel sign, creating a training‑free lower bound on tokenizer fertility. Across 26 languages, all 17 abugidas exhibit increased token counts (up to 9×), while Latin, Cyrillic, Hangul, and Han remain unchanged. The authors demonstrate that correcting the character class reduces Nepali token counts, improves model performance, and that this issue is widespread in popular HuggingFace models.
By Sajal Regmi, Siddhartha Pudasaini, Chetan Phakami Pun
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen