Jan 2026· arXiv.org· Vol abs/2601.06644· 1 citation· 36 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
This paper introduces a simple two-hop question answering setting, where answering a question requires making inferences over two multilingual documents, and finds that language models are more sensitive to language variation in answer-span documents than in those providing bridging information, despite the equal importance of both documents for answering a question.
Abstract
The real-world information sources are inherently multilingual, which naturally raises a question about whether language models can synthesize information across languages. In this paper, we introduce a simple two-hop question answering setting, where answering a question requires making inferences over two multilingual documents. We find that language models are more sensitive to language variation in answer-span documents than in those providing bridging information, despite the equal importance of both documents for answering a question. Under a step-by-step sub-question evaluation, we further show that in up to 33% of multilingual cases, models fail to infer the bridging information in the first step yet still answer the overall question correctly. This indicates that reasoning in language models, especially in multilingual settings, does not follow a faithful step-by-step decomposition. Subsequently, we show that the absence of reasoning decomposition leads to around 18% composition failure, where both sub-questions are answered correctly but fail for the final two-hop questions. To mitigate this, we propose a simple three-stage SUBQ prompting method to guide the multi-step reasoning with sub-questions, which boosts accuracy from 10.1% to 66.5%.
A framework for multimodal document understanding that jointly evaluates Answer Correctness and Evidence Grounding is presented, suggesting that the two measures capture complementary aspects of model behavior and that evaluating both can help distinguish errors in evidence grounding from errors in answer generation an...
R. Zanoli, A. Lavelli· Applied Sciences· 0 citations
This work presents a unified evaluation of representative CLC-enhancement methods for question answering, spanning inference-time interventions and post-training approaches across three model families and three closed-form benchmarks, highlighting the need to evaluate CLC enhancement for both cross-domain robustness an...
Jirui Qi, Ming-Yang Wang, Hinrich Schütze et al.· 0 citations
It is shown 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, indicating that reasoning is a language-agnostic behavior that can be transferred across typologically diverse l...
Mehrnaz Mofakhami, Ananya Sahu, Alejandro R. Salamanca et al.· 0 citations
The Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap (CLCG) is defined as the reduction in response quality when the same content and question are presented in a target language rather than in English.
Cross-lingual probe transfer and direct comparison of probe weights show that NLI representations are most alignable in the middle layers: probes transfer best there, and probes trained independently on different languages converge to similar weight vectors, peaking mid-network.
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations