Large language models often underperform in many European languages due to the dominance of English and a few high-resource languages in training data. This paper presents TildeOpen LLM, a 30-billion-parameter open-weight foundational model trained for 34 European languages to promote linguistic equity and improve performance for low-resource languages. To address the data imbalance, we combine dataset upsampling with a curriculum-based training schedule that alternates between uniform and natural language distributions. The resulting model performs favorably compared to other multilingual LLMs despite being trained with significantly fewer computing resources. Evaluation across multiple multilingual benchmarks shows that TildeOpen surpasses existing open-weight models in text generation and comprehension, particularly for Baltic, Finno-Ugric, and Slavic languages. Human evaluations confirm an up to tenfold reduction in linguistic errors relative to leading baselines. The model and associated resources are fully open-weight and publicly available at huggingface.co/TildeAI/TildeOpen-30b. These outcomes demonstrate that careful data curation and balanced training strategies can substantially enhance multilingual model quality without increasing model size or training volume.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of tokenization efficiency of various LLMs - boxplot over all focus languages of [Anonymized] on the FLORES 200 devtest dataset (except Albanian, which is not included in the dataset).
Unique
Ups.Ratio.
Total
LTG
0.01
2.34
0.03
GA
0.3
2.30
0.6
CNR
0.5
2.38
1.2
MT
0.5
2.16
1.1
IS
1.7
2.24
3.9
MK
3.6
2.33
8.4
Table 1: Dataset statistics in billions of unique number of tokens and tokens after upsampling.
Figure 2: Data distribution during different phases of training.
Lang. Fam.
EuroLLM
ALIA
Gemma 2
N-Germanic
4.0%
2.7%
4.6%
W-Germanic
6.4%
1.5%
4.6%
Romance
11.2%
2.3%
5.6%
Baltic
7.8%
7.9%
13.8%
Slavic (Lat.)
7.7%
4.8%
8.6%
Slavic (Cyr.)
5.6%
3.4%
5.5%
Table 2: Relative improvement of our model’s per-character perplexity compared to other open foundational LLMs on WMT24pp. Higher results are better. The Northern Germanic comparison excluded Icelandic (some models do not support it).
5-shot
EuroLLM
Gemma 2
ALIA
This work
MultiBLiMP
96.4%
95.7%
96.7%
99.0%
Belebele
82.5%
79.5%
76.8%
84.7%
ARCx
65.6%
72.4%
65.9%
65.3%
MMLUx
59.3%
69.3%
60.7%
59.9%
Exams
62.5%
71.2%
62.7%
66.6%
AVG Borda
0.8
2.0
1.4
1.8
Table 3: 5-shot performance and average Borda scores across benchmarks. Higher results are better.
Figure 3: Error analysis results - averaged errors per 100 words over two language editors (professional linguists and native speakers).
Model
ET
LV
EuroLLM
2445
2116
Gemma 2
2216
3957
This work
3168
2652
Table 4: Word count in Estonian (ET) and Latvian (LV) texts generated for linguistic error analysis.
WMT24++
GPT-4.1
EuroLLM
This Work
EN-XX
0.865
0.834
0.843
DE-XX
0.847
0.831
0.840
FR-XX
0.839
0.823
0.832
PL-XX
0.838
0.826
0.833
UK-XX
0.833
0.820
0.829
LT-XX
0.830
0.813
0.825
Table 5: Results of automatic translation quality evaluation as measured by COMET on the WMT24pp dataset. Results for GPT-4.1 added for reference.
Avg.
ChrF++
Edit
Lang.
Docs
tok.
Avg.
Max.
dist.
BG
31
650
21.9
35.3
0.94
BS
32
423
23.0
42.9
0.94
CNR
2
2094
17.5
22.6
0.93
CODE
31
2469
43.6
86.7
0.74
CS
31
512
20.7
54.1
0.94
Table 6: Memorization evaluation on the final training data slice. We report word-level ChrF++ (higher indicates greater similarity to the reference) and averaged edit distance (higher indicates greater divergence from the reference).
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.
We evaluate large language models (LLMs) as language agents playing goal-directed dialogue games in self-play across 30 languages: the 24 official EU languages plus six others. Unlike static or preference-based evaluation, this paradigm is multi-turn, reference-free and programmatically scored, and because the game mechanics are language-agnostic it extends to a new language by localising a fixed set of prompt and word-list files. Evaluating nine open-weight and commercial LLMs, we find that no open-weight model covers the EU-24 well: in every official language both commercial systems outscore every open-weight model, and the two weakest average below 40 points across the EU-24. The commercial systems stay ahead even in languages with four orders of magnitude less public web text, showing that linguistic parity is achievable, but not from public crawls alone. A model's home region lifts it without closing the gap: Chinese is the strongest of all 30 languages for two Chinese-developed models, yet the best Chinese score of any model belongs to a US commercial system. Coverage is also not parity of service. Pooled over models and languages, the median non-English language costs 31% more to run than English, and scores 10% lower.
Sherzod Hakimov, Karl Osswald, Jelle Psurek +3
Computational Linguistics, Department of Linguistics University of Potsdam, Germany · 1German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany
Multilinguality is a core capability for modern foundation models, yet training high-quality multilingual models remains challenging due to uneven data availability across languages. A further challenge is the performance interference that can arise from joint multilingual training, commonly referred to as the "curse of multilinguality". We study multilingual data curation across thirteen languages and find that many reported regressions are not inherent to multilingual scaling but instead stem from correctable deficiencies in data quality and composition rather than fundamental capacity limits. In controlled bilingual experiments, improving data quality for any single language benefits others: curating English improves non-English performance in 12 of 13 languages, while curating non-English yields reciprocal improvements in English. Bespoke per-language curation produces substantially larger within-language improvements. Extending these findings to large-scale general-purpose training mixtures, we show that curated multilingual allocations comprising under 8% of total tokens remain remarkably effective. We operationalize this approach within an effort that produced a 20T-token pretraining corpus derived entirely from public sources. Models with 3B and 8B parameters trained on a 1T-token random subset achieve competitive multilingual accuracy with 4-10x fewer training FLOPs than strong public baselines, establishing a new Pareto frontier in multilingual performance versus compute. Moreover, these benefits extend to frontier model scale: the 20T-token corpus served as part of the pretraining dataset for Trinity Large (400B/A13B), which exhibits strong multilingual performance relative to its training FLOPs. These results show that targeted, per-language data curation mitigates multilingual interference and enables compute-efficient multilingual scaling.