arXiv Computation and Language By Yana Veitsman, Yihong Liu, Hinrich Sch\"utze

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

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

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.

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 Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10

Improving Cross-Lingual Token Representations by Adding a Pinch of SALT

The paper introduces SALT, a lightweight post‑training technique that injects span‑level supervision into existing cross‑lingual sentence encoders to enhance token representations. Evaluated on five multilingual token‑level benchmarks, SALT achieves the best overall results on four tasks, surpassing alternative fine‑tuning methods and competitive encoders. Additionally, SALT improves sentence‑level performance on cross‑lingual retrieval and classification tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of span‑level supervision for both token and sentence representations.

By Guillem Ram\'irez
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
Aug 27

Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.

By Xiulin Yang, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Catherine Arnett
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
Sep 18

Improving Cross-Lingual Transfer for Sequential Sentence Classification in Research Papers via Structural Similarity

The paper investigates cross‑lingual transfer for sequential sentence classification (SSC) in research papers, focusing on 13 non‑English languages. Experiments show that linguistic proximity does not reliably predict transfer success, whereas structural similarity in rhetorical organization—particularly label distribution similarity—correlates positively with performance. The authors introduce three generative‑model methods that exploit structural cues, achieving parity with strong encoder baselines on‑domain and outperforming them when transferring to unseen languages.

By Kazuhiro Yamauchi, Marie Katsurai