Post-Training Language Models for Crosslingual Consistency

Multilingual language models often produce inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions across languages, motivating methods to improve cross-lingual consistency (CLC). However, existing methods are typically evaluated using different models, tasks, and protocols, leaving their relative strengths unclear. In this work, we present 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. The results show that post-training methods are generally more reliable, with direct distribution alignment consistently improving CLC across all model-dataset combinations, while other methods are more sensitive to answer format and the breadth of language coverage. Notably, cross-domain transfer is limited unless source and target tasks share similar output formats. We further investigate whether CLC enhancement hurts models' ability to respond differently when needed, that is, when asked culture-dependent questions. Across two benchmarks of culturally diverse question answering, we find no systematic degradation in controlled closed-form evaluation, whereas open-ended generation reveals occasional accuracy reductions, particularly for non-English responses. Our work highlights the need to evaluate CLC enhancement for both cross-domain robustness and culturally appropriate variation, informing future work in post-training and benchmark development.

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.

Multilingual large language models (MLLMs) often answer culturally ambiguous questions inconsistently across languages, even for a fixed user persona -- e.g., Shakespeare in English but Cervantes in Spanish for the same British user. To robustly quantify this Cross-lingual Cultural Inconsistency, we introduce Singleton Fleiss's $κ_S$, a metric mathematically resilient to hallucinations. For mitigation, we propose Cross-lingual Cultural Consistent Preference Optimisation (C-3PO), a consensus-driven alignment framework. C-3PO raises $κ_S$ by 0.07--0.10 over unaligned models, above every prompting and representation steering baseline averaged across personas, whilst largely preserving explicit user identities, cultural neutrality and intrinsic cultural knowledge; where it does not, a soft-consensus variant recovers most of the cost. Although trained only on multiple-choice questions, C-3PO also improves consistency in open-ended generation. Empirical evaluations demonstrate this inconsistency is more pronounced for lower-resource languages like Indonesian and Persian. Finally, early decoding of intermediate layers reveals that MLLMs implicitly personalise outputs towards the prompt language's stereotypical culture as forward-pass representations stabilise.