LLM debate is usually evaluated by final answers, yet transcripts reveal whether later turns develop new arguments or return to earlier claims in new wording. We study this process with \textit{prior-argument similarity}, which compares extracted argument units with earlier units in the same debate. In controlled eight-turn debates over 71 motions, six languages, and four model agents, Chinese is the only tested language with a consistently positive gap relative to English across three multilingual embedding models. The gap persists across agents, turn positions, regression adjustment, metric variants, extraction-length controls, a second-extractor subset, and cross-encoder tail rescoring. Manual calibration shows weak item-level alignment but a high-similarity tail enriched for substantive repetition. A diversity-aware prompt lowers \textit{prior-argument similarity} across languages, yet does not significantly narrow the Chinese--English gap. Multilingual debate evaluation should therefore measure argumentative development over time and report both average and gap terms.
Multilingual evaluations report accuracy at a single output-token cap, but languages need different numbers of tokens to express the same content, so the cap is a hidden experimental variable. We test whether the native-vs-translate gap on MGSM (German, Thai, Swahili) is a token-budget artifact for Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under four prompting strategies. The measured gap swings by up to 57 points across budgets, length normalization moves it by up to 38.9 points where the cap binds, and at tight caps normalization can reverse which strategy scores higher. We prospectively froze the sweep's three Qwen peaks and its near-zero value at 1024 and evaluated them on 540,000 independently hard-capped decodes: a second frozen family of six Holm-corrected tests rejects every null. The frozen test at $B^*=1024$ still fails to reject because native accuracy has already saturated there; above saturation, the residual difference is a strategy-performance gap, not an identified reasoning deficit. The same truncation channel prices a cost-ordered adaptation ladder: a cross-fitted Thai vocabulary extension closes 0.0 points of the gap at the frozen budget and 4.9 points where 19% of traces still truncate. A third frozen family varies only the announced budget at a fixed enforced cap; announcing 128 rather than 2048 tokens moves Thai native accuracy by 5.1 points, so accuracy is not a function of the enforced cap alone. A correct-emission timing identity computed from one long-cap run matches the three pre-specified MGSM peaks to 0.65 points and, in an exploratory Qwen-only analysis of three further benchmarks, tracks held-out items to 0.92 points, locating the peak exactly in five of seven cells. Treat the output cap as an independent variable and report accuracy across the budget regime, not at a single budget.
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.
It is found that LLMs can be moved toward reformulation and away from the sentence-by-sentence paradigm, though more work is needed to improve the effectiveness of those reformulations.
Large language models access knowledge inconsistently across languages, but to what extent do they differ in their skill sets when interacting with different languages? This work quantifies cross-lingual skill inconsistency orthogonally from knowledge and general benchmark performance. We do this via multilingual self-play: two instances of the same model compete in a text-based game, each interacting through a different language interface. Since the model, opponent, rules, state space, and available actions remain fixed, this setting isolates the effect of language on the model's realized behavior. We build a multilingual extension to TextArena and evaluate three open-weight models across eight languages and six games covering spatial reasoning, imperfect information, resource allocation, and repeated interaction. We find that the same model can exhibit markedly different playing strength across languages, with systematic variation in win--loss margins, invalid actions, and strategic tendencies. Detailed analyses reveal language-specific failures in spatial reasoning, card-conditioned decisions, and optimal move selection. In some settings, changing only the intermediate reasoning language recovers much of the lost performance, suggesting that language can affect different stages of the decision process. These results show that skill discrepancies are a measurable major roadblock in the development of truly multilingual models. Better understanding these discrepancies can help us design models that perform more equitably across languages.
Bobby Cheng, Adam Gaber, Zhengzhe Liu et al.· 0 citations
Large language models increasingly \emph{understand} dialectal English, yet still \emph{produce} only standard, US-leaning English, leaving dialectal generation, the harder half of the problem, largely unaddressed. We introduce \textbf{DiaLLM}, which continually pretrains three open-weight language model families on the International Corpus of English and applies implicit and explicit post-training paradigms, each combined with three model alignment strategies, giving the first controlled comparison of these components across Australian, Indian, and Northern British English. Our results reveal that dialectal robustness and generation are \emph{dissociated}: benchmarks are shaped by continual pretraining and SFT, while alignment visibly reshapes generation in ways benchmarks do not capture. Explicit variety-targeted adaptation produces output reliably recognised as dialectal and preferred over broad alignment, yet the method that most aggressively optimises the dialectal reward is not preferred by human evaluators. Independent linguistic analysis corroborates this reward-quality gap, most clearly on two of the three families. No single alignment method dominates, and closing the gap will require richer reward designs and continued investment in dialectal resources. We release all code, checkpoints, and preference datasets.
Jordan Painter, Dipankar Srirag, Adarsh Kappiyath et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly evaluate human writing in high-stakes domains such as hiring and academic assessment, putting non-native speakers at particular risk. Drawing on the language attitudes framework, we compared human and LLM evaluations of parallel L1- and L2-written Japanese emails on three dimensions: fluency, status, and solidarity. Japanese raters rated L2 texts significantly lower on all three dimensions, with a fluency gap roughly twice the size of the status and solidarity gaps. Six LLM judges reproduced the direction of this bias, and five reproduced its ordering across dimensions. The models diverged from humans in two ways: all understated the solidarity gap, the most socially grounded dimension, and all differentiated among learner L1 backgrounds where humans did not. LLM judges thus reproduce native speakers'language attitudes in a structured yet attenuated form, and the language attitudes framework offers a ready-made yardstick for auditing them beyond English.