Overall, the effectiveness of script unification depends on the language, the induced subword overlap, and the available supervision, while within-language coverage becomes more important when target-language supervision is available.
Abstract
Closely related languages written in different scripts expose little surface overlap to multilingual models, limiting cross-lingual transfer. We compare two approaches to script unification: the general-purpose uroman romanizer and the family-specific Common Turkic Script (CTS). We train matched fastText models on transliterated Wikipedia corpora from 11 Turkic languages and evaluate them on WikiANN named entity recognition and Universal Dependencies part-of-speech tagging. CTS and uroman show no significant difference on NER, while both substantially outperform the official monolingual fastText baselines. POS results reveal no universal winner: language-specific differences are associated with the cross-lingual character n-gram coverage induced by each representation, while within-language coverage becomes more important when target-language supervision is available. Although CANINE-c achieves higher overall POS averages, the substantially simpler fastText-based systems remain competitive on several treebanks. Overall, the effectiveness of script unification depends on the language, the induced subword overlap, and the available supervision.
Multilingual language models transfer knowledge across languages through shared subword vocabulary, a mechanism that breaks down when related languages use different writing systems. Prior work addresses this via script equalization (romanization or IPA transcription), but direct comparisons are rare; the focus has been on encoder-only models, with most work adapting existing pretrained models. We systematically compare different input representations in autoregressive multilingual pretraining, comparing orthographic text, IPA, and romanization in a controlled setup across three scales (467M, 709M, and 1.03B) on eight languages in four typologically motivated pairs. Across a wide range of downstream tasks on seen and unseen languages, romanized pretraining yields the strongest cross-lingual transfer, and the advantage over text widens with scale. IPA improves over text in most settings but trails romanization. Surprisingly, finetuning a text-pretrained model on romanized data hurts performance on languages already covered by the base model, only marginally helping when the model lacks script coverage. Our results indicate that for multilingual models spanning typologically diverse scripts, to obtain maximum benefits, romanization should be treated as a core design choice applied at pretraining rather than a post hoc fix.
Mu-Ge Zhang, Aaron Jencks, Krishna Badikela et al.· 0 citations
It is confirmed that cross-lingual alignment can emerge from the structure of language and the information it carries rather than from joint training, and this points to practical future directions including model stitching, merging, and modular multilingual systems built from monolingual components.
Ej Zhou, Suchir Salhan, Catherine Arnett et al.· 0 citations
In every setting, pre-adaptation on related auxiliary languages yields no practically meaningful improvements once as little as one hour of target-language data is available, suggesting that relatedness alone may not reliably predict transfer gains in large multilingual ASR, or constitute an effective strategy for extending such models to low-resource languages.
A. Florian, C. Amol, Hope Kerubo Ombaba et al.· 0 citations
Cross-lingual mismatch remains a key source of overall degradation in modern speaker verification. The TidyVoice2026 Challenge targets this setting with text-independent verification, comprising 3,666 training and 808 development speakers in 40 languages and 2,200 evaluation speakers in 38 unseen languages, without language labels at test time. Starting from the official SimAM-ResNet34 baseline pretrained on VoxBlink2 and VoxCeleb2 and fine-tuned on TidyVoice, we revisit Nuisance Attribute Projection (NAP) as a simple language-normalization step in the embedding space. We estimate a compact language subspace from cross-language same-speaker differences and project embeddings onto its orthogonal complement before cosine scoring with Adaptive Symmetric score normalization. This reduces development EER from 2.97\% with cosine and 2.70\% with AS-Norm to 2.18\% and yields a Codabench evaluation score of 8.40, showing that simple back-end language normalization can rival more complex systems.
Cross-lingual transfer is central to low-resource machine translation, but its behavior within closely related language families remains insufficiently characterized. We study transfer among five Turkic languages; Turkish, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz; using pairwise transfer matrices. In this setting, each model is fine-tuned with one transfer source and evaluated on a different transfer target while the translation target remains the same. Across mT5 experiments, we find that transfer is strongest between closely related Turkic pairs, especially Turkish-Azerbaijani and Kazakh-Kyrgyz. We also show that transfer direction matters, and that the same transfer source-transfer target pair can behave differently when the translation target changes. Latinization improves BLEU and chrF in several script-mismatched settings, but its effect is not uniform across metrics. Additional analyses show that transfer sources are mostly stable across different datasets and model settings.
Omer Burak Cinar, Mehmet M. Dalkilic, Cagri Toraman· 0 citations
This work introduces M-GATE (Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency), a benchmark of linguistic proficiency spanning 30 typologically diverse languages from high- to low-resource, and evaluates over 50 models in more than 80 configurations.
Tomáš Burkert, Angelika Peljak-Łapińska, David Zelený· 0 citations