EstLLM: Enhancing Estonian Capabilities in Multilingual LLMs via Continued Pretraining and Post-Training
Authors: Aleksei Dorkin, Taido Purason, Emil Kalbaliyev, Hele-Andra Kuulmets, Marii Ojastu, Mark Fišel, Tanel Alumäe, Eleri Aedmaa, Krister Kruusmaa, Kairit Sirts
Organizations: Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia · Department of Software Science, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia · Institute of the Estonian Language, Tallinn, Estonia · School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia
Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly trained on English-centric data, resulting in uneven performance for smaller languages. We study whether continued pretraining (CPT) can improve Estonian capabilities in multilingual LLMs while preserving English and general reasoning performance. Using Llama 3.1 8B and Apertus 8B as base models, we apply CPT with Estonian-enriched multilingual replay, followed by mostly English supervised fine-tuning, preference optimization, and chat vector merging. Evaluation on Estonian benchmarks, targeted pairwise human evaluation, and an Estonian Chatbot Arena-style setup shows consistent improvements in Estonian language competence, reasoning, translation, and instruction-following. Although Apertus exhibits stronger Estonian capabilities before adaptation, the more English-centric Llama model achieves substantially larger gains after adaptation. While some English capabilities regress relative to the original instruction-tuned models, chat vector merging substantially restores English instruction-following and reasoning performance. These findings suggest that CPT with balanced multilingual replay and lightweight post-training alignment can substantially improve single-language capabilities in multilingual LLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the EstLLM adaptation pipeline.
Domain
Source
Tokens
Estonian
Estonian National Corpus
8.6B
English
Cosmopedia v2
6.9B
Code
Python-Edu
3.3B
Math
FineMath-4+
9.5B
Instructions
Instruct-PT
7.4B
Total
35.7B
Table 1: Continued pretraining data mixture. Token counts produced using the Llama 3.1 tokenizer.
ET Discriminative Benchmarks ( acc % )
Average
Model
Belebele
Exam
Grammar
Declension
Trivia
WinoGr.
XCOPA
GPIQA
Score
Rank
Baselines:
EuroLLM-9B
69.9
61.8
66.3
44.0
37.1
69.2
71.2
69.0
61.1
4.4
Ministral-3-8B-Base-2512
26.3
52.8
64.1
58.5
31.6
62.3
56.0
60.0
51.4
6.5
Llammas-base
38.7
46.2
53.8
26.9
33.6
69.7
68.6
76.0
51.7
5.9
salamandra-7B
44.8
50.5
69.9
26.8
29.6
67.3
65.8
71.0
53.2
6.4
Table 2: Base model performance comparison across Estonian language benchmarks
EN Discriminative Bench. ( acc % )
Average
MT (BLEU)
Avg
Model
Belebele
WinoGr.
MMLU-R.
Score
Rank
EN-ET
ET-EN
Rank
Baselines:
EuroLLM-9B
77.3
73.2
55.7
68.7
7.0
29.0
41.2
1.0
Ministral-3-8B-Base-2512
89.7
77.1
72.9
79.9
2.0
12.6
29.6
7.5
Llammas-base
45.0
72.0
35.0
50.7
8.7
22.0
32.7
5.5
salamandra-7b
53.1
70.6
44.9
56.2
8.3
14.7
18.2
7.5
Table 3: Base model performance comparison on English language benchmarks and FLORES200 generative machine translation (MT) benchmark (BLEU).
Knowledge and Reasoning
Language competence
IFEval
Wino
Global
Truthful
Declen-
Word
Model
ET
grande
Trivia
Exam
PIQA
QA
Grammar
sion
Meanings
EuroLLM-9B-Instruct
54.0
58.5
37.4
55.9
55.0
28.9
76.4
36.7
92.6
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
48.9
58.1
31.3
50.1
48.0
35.3
56.2
48.3
84.0
Apertus-8B-Instruct-2509
54.8
51.1
34.5
55.2
51.0
36.6
51.2
36.6
90.3
salamandra-7b-instruct
51.9
28.8
28.7
35.6
55.0
30.1
59.4
26.7
80.8
Table 4: Estonian benchmark results of instruction-following models.
IFEval
Knowledge and Reasoning
Model
EN
Winogrande
PIQA
TruthfulQA
MMLU-Redux
GSM8K
EuroLLM-9B-Instruct
70.0
50.6
58.0
29.6
57.4
59.4
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
68.5
65.0
77.0
51.9
74.2
39.3
Apertus-8B-Instruct-2509
78.1
51.3
60.0
39.1
61.1
56.8
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
81.1
56.3
76.0
52.4
69.6
77.1
Llammas
43.7
49.8
0.0
19.7
34.2
14.6
Table 5: English benchmark results for instruction-tuned models.
Figure 2: Pairwise human evaluation results (counts of left/tie/right preference). Significantly better model determined using bootstrap resampling indicated with * ( p=0.05 ).
Rank
Model
Size
Score
1
DeepSeek-V3 (0324)
685B
1457
1
Kimi-K2-Instruct
1T
1442
1
Llama 4 Maverick
402B
1432
1
Gemma-3-27B-it
27B
1413
1
Llama-EstLLM-8B-Instruct-CV
8B
1384
2
Llama-EstLLM-8B-Instruct
8B
1376
Table 6: Snapshot of the open-model leaderboard from an Estonian Chatbot Arena style evaluation platform.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Language
Type
Source
Pairs
Estonian
natural
Language Help
46K
Estonian
natural
EstNER
17K
Estonian
natural
EstCOPA
800
Estonian
natural
EIC
200
Estonian
synthetic
EuroLLM
175
English
natural
Flan V2
58K
Appendix
Table 7: Instruction tuning mixture components and the number of instruction-response pairs in each component.
Hyperparameter
Llama-3.1-8B
Apertus-8B
Learning rate
5e-5
Optimizer
AdamW
Adam ϵ
1e-8
Adam β1
0.9
Adam β2
0.95
Sequence length
4096
Appendix
Table 8: Continued pre-training (CPT) hyperparameters. Apertus-8B CPT uses the same setting as Llama-3.1-8B if not stated otherwise.
Epochs
Disc. ( Avg acc % )
MT ( BLEU )
ET
EN
EN-ET
ET-EN
No training
54.0
76.9
13.5
33.7
Epoch 1
69.5
75.4
28.1
36.8
Epoch 2
70.2
75.5
27.0
36.4
Epoch 3
70.5
74.4
28.2
36.4
Appendix
Table 9: Repeating Estonian data: average accuracy of discriminative benchmarks and FLORES-200 BLEU scores (full results in Table 10 ).
Epoch
Benchmark
0
1
2
3
Discriminative ( acc )
ET
Exam
44.7
57.0
57.5
57.2
Belebele
67.0
77.2
75.7
77.6
GlobalPIQA
53.0
78.0
79.0
81.0
Grammar
65.8
87.5
89.7
85.0
Appendix
Table 10: Benchmark results depending on how many epochs the Estonian training data was repeated ( Llama-3.1-8B ). Epoch=0 is the base model before CPT. Full results in Appendix C.1 Table 10 .
Training DS
∣D∣
Avg Acc. %
Avg Rank
no training
0
54.0
3.1
ENC
8.6B
62.2
1.7
FW2
15.9B
61.3
2.9
ET FW mix
19.1B
59.6
2.1
Appendix
Table 11: Estonian discriminative benchmark scores after continued pretraining with Estonian corpora (monolingual). ∣D∣ is the dataset size in Llama 3.1 tokens. Full results in Appendix 3.1 Table 12 .
Dataset
∣D∣
Exam
Belebele
Grammar
Declension
Trivia
XCOPA
WinoGrande
Avg Acc
Avg Rank
no training
0
44.7
67.0
65.8
58.7
30.0
53.2
59.6
54.1
3.1
ENC
8.6B
54.6
67.0
72.1
48.2
45.6
75.4
72.8
62.2
1.7
FW2
15.9B
53.4
65.6
71.6
48.0
41.9
74.4
74.2
61.3
2.9
ET FW mix
19.1B
55.1
67.4
59.0
42.7
43.4
75.0
74.5
59.6
2.1
Appendix
Table 12: Estonian discriminative benchmark accuracies (%) after continued pretraining with Estonian corpora (monolingual).
Figure 3: Pairwise human evaluation results. Significant results indicated with * ( p=0.05 ).
Figure 4: Pairwise human evaluation results. Significant results indicated with * ( p=0.05 ).
Figure 5: Annotation interface used for human evaluation. The interface provides task instructions and definitions of the evaluation categories (shown in yellow), side-by-side model responses (shown in teal) to two consecutive prompts (shown in blue), and checkboxes for indicating preferences in each category. Original interface text is shown in Estonian. The English translation of the instructions is as follows: “ Read the conversations held with two anonymous models thoroughly. Then evaluate the models’ responses in the categories provided below. A conversation consists of two prompts and two responses. Choose the better model in each category. If the models’ responses are equally good or equally bad, choose a tie. Base your decision on the definitions of the categories listed here. ”
Benchmark
Num fewshot
Belebele (EN/ET)
5
Exam
5
FLORES
5
GlobalPIQA
0
Grammar
5
Declension
5
Appendix
Table 13: Number of few-shot examples in base model evaluation.
No
Rank
Model
Model size
Score
95% CI
Votes
1
1
DeepSeek-V3 (0324)
685B
1457
− 28/ + 41
964
2
1
Kimi-K2-Instruct
1T
1442
− 40/ + 36
729
3
1
Llama 4 Maverick
402B
1432
− 31/ + 38
749
4
1
Gemma-3-27B-it
27B
1413
− 38/ + 35
750
5
1
Llama-EstLLM-8B-Instruct-CV
8B
1384
− 47/ + 53
110
6
2
Llama-EstLLM-8B-Instruct
8B
1376
− 40/ + 39
541
Appendix
Table 14: Top-20 ranked open models leaderboard from the Chatbot Arena style evaluation page in Estonian.
Figure 6: Results of base model SLERP merging, where t=0 is Llama-3.1-8B and t=1 is Llama-3.1-EstLLM-8B . The colored area represents the 95% confidence interval calculated from the standard error reported by LM evaluation harness Gao et al. (2024) .
Despite the widespread multilingual deployment of large language models, post-training pipelines remain predominantly English-centric, contributing to performance disparities across languages. We present a systematic, controlled study of the interplay between training language coverage, model scale, and task domain, based on 220 supervised fine-tuning runs on parallel translated multilingual data mixtures spanning mathematical reasoning and API calling tasks, with models up to 8B parameters. We find that English-only post-training is typically suboptimal: incorporating even a single non-English language improves both English performance and cross-lingual generalization. Increasing language diversity during post-training generally yields further gains, particularly for low-resource languages, while performance on high-resource languages tends to plateau rather than degrade. Moreover, greater language diversity enables strong zero-shot transfer to unseen languages, reducing the need for direct inclusion, though gains remain limited for typologically distant, low-resource languages.
Despite advances in multilingual capabilities, most large language models (LLMs) remain English-centric in their training and, crucially, in the reasoning traces they produce: even for non-English problems, they predominantly reason in English, leaving non-English users with intermediate reasoning they cannot follow. We address this disparity with two contributions. (a) We introduce ReasonXL, the first large-scale parallel corpus of cross-domain reasoning traces in five European languages (English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish): over 2.5M aligned samples (11B tokens) per language, each comprising prompt, reasoning trace, and final output, enabling direct supervision of language-specific reasoning. (b) Using ReasonXL, we demonstrate that LLMs can be adapted to reason entirely in a target language through a simple two-stage pipeline of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), matching or exceeding the base models' English-reasoning performance in two of four languages and recovering most of it in the remaining two.
Daniil Gurgurov, Tom Röhr, Sebastian von Rohrscheidt +3
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarland University · Berliner Hochschule für Technik
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly multilingual, yet open models continue to underperform relative to proprietary systems, with the gap most pronounced for African languages. Continued pre-training (CPT) offers a practical route to language adaptation, but improvements on demanding capabilities such as mathematical reasoning often remain limited. This limitation is driven in part by the uneven domain coverage and missing task-relevant knowledge that characterize many low-resource language corpora. We present AfriqueLLM, a suite of open LLMs adapted to 20 African languages through CPT on 26B tokens. We perform a comprehensive empirical study across five base models spanning sizes and architectures, including Llama 3.1, Gemma 3, and Qwen 3, and systematically analyze how CPT data composition shapes downstream performance. In particular, we vary mixtures that include math, code, and synthetic translated data, and evaluate the resulting models on a range of multilingual benchmarks. Our results identify data composition as the primary driver of CPT gains. Adding math, code, and synthetic translated data yields consistent improvements, including on reasoning-oriented evaluations. Within a fixed architecture, larger models typically improve performance, but architectural choices dominate scale when comparing across model families. Moreover, strong multilingual performance in the base model does not reliably predict post-CPT outcomes; robust architectures coupled with task-aligned data provide a more dependable recipe. Finally, our best models improve long-context performance, including document-level translation. Models and code have been released on Huggingface and Github.
Hao Yu, Tianyi Xu, Michael A. Hedderich +3
McGill University, Canada · Mila-Quebec AI Institute, Canada · LMU Munich & Munich Center for Machine Learning, Germany +2