Papers for
multilingual chatbot developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Multilingual data mixing improves reasoning in language models
Building Multilingual Bridges: Data Mixing as the Pillar of Generalization for In-Language Reasoning
Abstract: Reasoning language models have made substantial advances on a variety of complex tasks, yet their capabilities remain overwhelmingly English-centric: models primarily reason in English regardless of the language they are prompted in. This is inaccessible for non-English-speaking users, risks losing the intent of the original question, and forgoes knowledge more readily expressed in the target language. In this work, we advance L2 reasoning, the ability of a model to reason consistently in the language of the user's prompt, thus building an in-language bridge between the prompt and the answer. We approach this problem from a data-centric angle, investigating how to optimize data composition and scheduling in SFT for reasoning generalization. Building Tiny Aya L2-Thinker at 3.35B scale, we achieve an L2 reasoning rate above 93% across 60 languages on 6 benchmarks spanning math, commonsense reasoning, instruction following, open-ended generation, and cultural reasoning while keeping performance strong. We show the path to generalizing L2 reasoning to held-out languages goes through broader language coverage, readily available multilingual non-reasoning data, and a sufficient English reasoning backbone. These findings indicate that reasoning is a language-agnostic behavior that can be transferred across typologically diverse languages through careful data mixing and without requiring reasoning supervision in every target language. We release our model weights and multilingual reasoning data to support further research on accessible, in-language reasoning.
Span level supervision improves multilingual token and sentence representations
Improving Cross-Lingual Token Representations by Adding a Pinch of SALT
Abstract: Cross-lingual sentence encoders enable scalable transfer across hundreds of languages, powering applications such as translation mining and zero-shot learning in low-resource settings. Although trained for sentence-level alignment, they are increasingly also applied to token-level tasks such as hallucination detection and sequence tagging, exposing a mismatch between training and usage. We propose SALT, a lightweight post-training method that improves token representations by injecting span-level supervision into existing sentence encoders. Across five multilingual token-level benchmarks, SALT achieves the best overall results on four of them, outperforming alternative fine-tuning strategies and competitive encoders. It also improves sentence-level performance on cross-lingual retrieval and classification tasks. These results demonstrate that span-level supervision is an effective signal for improving both token and sentence representations.
Language models often switch to wrong answers when given misleading source claims
When Models Defer to Wrong Answers: A Robustness Audit of Source-Attributed Cues in Multiple-Choice QA
Abstract: Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce \emph{neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate} (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.