Language on Demand, Knowledge at Core: Composing LLMs with Encoder-Decoder Translation Models for Extensible Multilinguality
Authors: Mengyu Bu, Yang Feng
Organizations: Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS) · State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general intelligence, yet their multilingual performance remains highly imbalanced. Although LLMs encode substantial cross-lingual knowledge in a unified semantic space, they often struggle to reliably interface this knowledge with low-resource or unseen languages. Fortunately, pretrained encoder-decoder translation models already possess balanced multilingual capability, suggesting a natural complement to LLMs. In this work, we propose XBridge, a compositional encoder-LLM-decoder architecture that offloads multilingual understanding and generation to external pretrained translation models, while preserving the LLM as an English-centric core for general knowledge processing. To address the resulting representation misalignment across models, we introduce lightweight cross-model mapping layers and an optimal transport-based alignment objective, enabling fine-grained semantic consistency for multilingual generation. Experiments on four LLMs across multilingual understanding, reasoning, summarization, and generation indicate that XBridge outperforms strong baselines, especially on low-resource and previously unseen languages, without retraining the LLM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of XBridge. Pretrained multilingual NMT models provide broad language coverage but limited general reasoning capability, while English-centric LLMs excel at general reasoning yet struggle with low-resource or unseen languages. XBridge harmonizes these strengths through model composition, offloading multilingual processing to the pretrained multilingual model while leveraging the LLM as a knowledge core.
Figure 2: Left: XBridge composes a pretrained multilingual encoder-decoder with an LLM via lightweight mapping layers for multilingual understanding and generation, keeping the LLM frozen as a knowledge core. Right: A three-stage training strategy progressively aligns heterogeneous representations and adapts the encoder and decoder.
System
Low-Resource Languages
High-Resource Languages
Average
Bn-En
En-Bn
Sw-En
En-Sw
Ja-En
En-Ja
De-En
En-De
X-En
En-X
NLLB-200-1.3B
37.78
32.83
42.66
36.28
29.60
19.07
46.23
39.91
37.51
31.00
MetaMath-7B
MetaMath-7B
1.46
0.67
3.33
1.75
27.62
16.76
34.36
19.42
18.62
11.92
MindMerger
30.76
-
39.43
-
22.50
-
40.05
-
31.57
-
LayAlign
30.91
-
39.02
-
22.36
-
39.43
-
31.98
-
Table 1: FLORES-101 translation results for stage 1. For clarity, we report results on two low-resource languages (Bengali, Swahili) and two high-resource languages (Japanese, German), with complete results and COMET scores in Appendix C . "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
Figure 3: Multilingual reasoning accuracy on MGSM and multilingual summarization Rouge-L on XL-Sum, with complete results in Appendix C . Models with the same base LLM share the same color scheme, where lighter shades denote baselines and darker shades denote XBridge. "XBridge-LLM" refers to English reasoning by the LLM, while "XBridge-Dec" refers to multilingual reasoning by the composed decoder. For XL-Sum, since the baselines produce English-only summaries, we translate them into target languages using NLLB-200-1.3B for evaluation.
Figure 4: Ablation analysis of XBridge. We compare different ablated variants of XBridge: encoder-only augmentation "w/o Decoder", loss ablation "w/o OT", removal of stage 1 "w/o Stage 1", and joint optimization of stage 2&3 "Joint Stage 2&3". “Lrl”, “Hrl”, and “Avg” denote low-, high-resource, and average performance, respectively.
Figure 5: Cross-lingual generalization to 41 untuned languages in FLORES-101. Left: X → En direction. Right: En → X direction. We directly evaluate the ablation variants described in Section 5.1 . Appendix C lists the included untuned languages and provides detailed results.
Figure 6: Evaluation for language-on-demand generation. Appendix C presents detailed results.
Figure 7: Visualization of sentence-level representation alignment for Chinese (Zh). We compare models trained without OT (left) and with OT (right) using t-SNE.
Figure 8: LLaMA3-8B composed with M2M100-1.2B. “Lrl”, “Hrl”, and “Avg” denote low-resource, high-resource, and average performance, respectively. Hollow markers placed on the bottom boundary indicate models that lack En → X translation capability. Appendix C presents detailed results.
Figure 9: MetaMath-7B composed with NLLB in different sizes (600M vs. 1.3B). “Lrl”, “Hrl”, and “Avg” denote low-, high-resource, and average performance, respectively. Appendix C presents detailed results.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: Statistics of training datasets used in different stages.
System
Training
Inference
SFT
1.0x
1.0x
Translate-Test
-
0.55x
MindMerger
1.42x
0.85x
XBridge
0.91x
0.66x
Appendix
Table 2: Relative speed comparison.
Figure 11: Case study on multilingual reasoning. Red text indicates the language token fed to the decoder, which controls the target generation language.
Figure 12: Radar plot comparison on X-CSQA.
ISO 639-1
Language
ISO 639-1
Language
ISO 639-1
Language
Af
Akrikaans
It
Italian
Pl
Polish
Ar
Arabic
Ka
Georgian
Ps
Pashto
Az
Azerbaijani
Kk
Kazakh
Pt
Portuguese
Cs
Czech
Km
Khmer
Ro
Romanian
El
Modern Greek
Ko
Korean
Sl
Slovenian
Et
Estonian
Lt
Lithuanian
Sv
Swedish
Appendix
Table 3: The included 41 untuned languages and corresponding language codes.
System
Bn-En
En-Bn
De-En
En-De
Es-En
En-Es
Fr-En
En-Fr
Ja-En
En-Ja
NLLB-200-1.3B
37.78
32.83
46.23
39.91
35.37
31.35
47.14
51.33
29.60
19.07
MetaMath-7B
MetaMath-7B
1.46
0.67
34.36
19.42
36.33
27.42
15.54
11.64
27.62
16.76
MindMerger
30.76
-
40.05
-
28.77
-
38.65
-
22.50
-
LayerAlign
30.91
-
39.43
-
30.16
-
40.48
-
22.36
-
XBridge (Ours)
35.47
29.23
41.42
35.39
30.51
28.88
42.14
49.49
24.52
19.60
Appendix
Table 4: Detailed BLEU scores on FLORES-101 for stage 1. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
System
Bn-En
En-Bn
De-En
En-De
Es-En
En-Es
Fr-En
En-Fr
Ja-En
En-Ja
NLLB-200-1.3B
88.30
85.67
88.80
86.12
86.72
85.68
88.83
87.05
87.05
86.45
MetaMath-7B
MetaMath-7B
50.85
35.10
86.25
76.59
84.39
78.49
86.84
78.45
82.62
76.35
MindMerger
86.87
-
87.81
-
85.52
-
87.64
-
84.94
-
LayerAlign
87.10
-
87.77
-
85.75
-
87.77
-
84.78
-
XBridge (Ours)
88.03
84.98
88.17
85.31
86.16
85.26
88.07
86.53
86.04
85.99
Appendix
Table 5: Detailed COMET scores on FLORES-101 for stage 1. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
System
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
MetaMath-7B
SFT
30.00
40.40
48.00
39.60
39.20
32.40
39.60
35.20
32.80
36.00
37.32
Translate-Test
34.80
49.20
53.20
47.60
40.80
45.20
49.20
43.20
32.40
46.00
44.16
MindMerger
43.60
57.20
67.20
59.20
60.00
45.60
57.60
49.20
42.40
48.80
53.08
LayerAlign
40.40
54.80
62.80
59.20
52.40
51.60
56.40
53.20
47.20
51.20
52.92
XBridge_LLM (Ours)
48.40
54.80
67.20
60.80
57.20
47.20
57.60
46.40
45.60
52.80
53.80
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed accuracy results on MGSM. "XBridge-LLM" denotes English reasoning outputs from the LLM, while "XBridge-Dec" denotes multilingual reasoning outputs via the external decoder. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
System
Bn
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
MetaMath-7B
SFT
16.79
33.27
23.68
28.42
29.20
25.42
27.01
18.68
20.16
24.74
MindMerger
17.93
27.27
21.03
26.05
28.11
22.25
26.49
19.20
18.56
22.99
LayerAlign
17.94
28.84
21.49
26.31
27.55
22.22
26.29
20.09
19.02
23.30
XBridge (Ours)
18.93
31.66
22.75
27.96
32.12
24.64
28.90
20.70
24.12
25.75
LLaMA3-8B
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed multilingual Rouge-L results on XL-Sum. For XL-Sum, since the baselines produce English summaries only, we translate them into target languages using NLLB-200-1.3B for comparison. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
Variants
Lrl-En
En-Lrl
Hrl-En
En-Hrl
X-En
En-X
MetaMath-7B
2.87
1.05
26.50
17.36
18.62
11.92
w/o OT
35.33
22.20
32.98
25.30
33.76
24.27
w/o Decoder
36.22
-
35.01
-
35.41
-
XBridge
33.93
25.56
31.98
29.37
32.63
28.10
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation results on FLORES-101 for stage 1. "Lrl" and "Hrl" denote low- and high-resource languages, respectively. Following Shi et al. (2023) , we treat Bn, Sw, and Th as low-resource languages, and the remaining as high-resource ones. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for each LLM group.
Variants
Lrl-LLM
Lrl-Dec
Hrl-LLM
Hrl-Dec
Avg-LLM
Avg-Dec
MetaMath-7B
5.60
-
50.06
-
36.72
-
SFT
32.67
-
39.31
-
37.32
-
w/o OT
48.27
47.20
56.23
54.57
53.84
52.36
w/o Decoder
48.27
-
56.91
-
54.32
-
w/o Stage 1
29.33
28.13
52.51
51.37
45.56
44.40
Joint Stage 2&3
43.07
42.53
48.63
47.26
46.96
45.84
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation accuracy results on MGSM. "Lrl" and "Hrl" denote low- and high-resource languages, respectively. "-LLM" denotes English reasoning outputs from the LLM, while "-Dec" denotes multilingual reasoning outputs via the external decoder. We bold the best scores.
Variants
Bn
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Lrl
Hrl
Avg
SFT
16.79
33.27
23.68
28.42
29.20
25.42
27.01
18.68
20.16
20.83
26.69
24.74
w/o OT
18.55
31.49
22.68
27.86
32.05
24.27
28.35
20.27
23.81
22.39
27.03
25.48
XBridge
18.85
31.50
22.84
28.18
32.26
24.36
28.57
21.08
24.40
22.83
27.26
25.78
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation Rouge-L results of XL-Sum on MetaMath-7B. "Lrl" and "Hrl" denote low- and high-resource languages, respectively. We bold the best scores.
Languages
X → En
En → X
NLLB
MetaMath
w/o OT
XBridge
NLLB
MetaMath
w/o OT
XBridge
Af
58.33
17.64
53.69
54.90
42.69
12.79
37.30
41.75
Ar
42.42
24.59
40.61
38.20
33.13
10.94
16.81
26.37
Az
28.25
28.97
25.35
23.57
19.39
16.23
12.25
16.18
Cs
41.17
1.34
40.47
38.54
35.85
0.32
23.39
30.03
El
37.68
3.59
37.19
35.43
28.16
0.80
19.07
24.34
Appendix
Table 11: Detailed results on 41 untuned languages, composing MetaMath-7B with NLLB-200-1.3B. We evaluate cross-model mapping quality on FLORES-101, following the main experiments. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for the LLM group.
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
Bn
-
22.47
37.09
20.56
31.36
16.69
21.03
22.85
13.62
17.42
22.57
De
24.74
-
45.75
25.57
39.82
18.73
26.51
26.34
14.82
19.81
26.90
En
28.42
35.45
-
29.59
49.38
20.12
30.57
34.68
17.09
23.11
29.82
Es
22.21
23.42
32.00
-
33.74
16.82
21.78
22.01
12.93
17.57
22.50
Fr
24.26
28.62
46.10
26.64
-
17.75
25.90
26.99
14.47
19.96
25.63
Ja
20.76
20.05
27.63
18.59
26.94
-
18.82
19.76
12.60
17.16
20.26
Appendix
Table 12: BLEU scores for cross-lingual generation of XBridge, composing LLaMA3-8B with NLLB-200-1.3B. Rows denote the source language and columns denote the target language. The source text is encoded by the multilingual encoder, the LLM produces an English translation, and the decoder generates the target-language text conditioned on the target-language token. For X → En directions, we directly evaluate the LLM outputs.
MGSM
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
Bn
46.00
44.40
45.20
45.60
40.80
42.80
44.00
46.00
44.00
44.80
44.36
De
58.40
56.40
58.40
59.20
53.20
54.80
58.40
58.00
58.40
59.20
57.44
En
63.60
62.80
63.20
63.60
59.60
61.60
62.80
63.20
61.20
64.00
62.56
Es
60.00
57.60
61.60
61.20
55.20
56.80
60.40
60.80
57.60
60.80
59.20
Fr
58.80
58.40
60.40
60.80
57.20
56.80
60.80
59.60
58.00
60.00
59.08
Ja
49.20
47.20
49.20
50.00
43.60
46.80
48.80
48.80
48.00
48.80
48.04
Appendix
Table 13: Accuracy for langauge-on-demand generation of XBridge, composing LLaMA3-8B with NLLB-200-1.3B. Rows denote the query language and columns denote the response language. The query is first processed by the encoder, the LLM produces an English response, and the decoder then generates the target language response via the target language token.
System
Lrl-En
En-Lrl
Hrl-En
En-Hrl
X-En
En-X
M2M100-1.2B
28.00
22.25
33.11
32.55
31.41
29.12
LLaMA3-8B
32.03
17.43
36.77
32.32
35.19
27.36
MindMerger
31.37
-
32.67
-
32.24
-
LayerAlign
31.28
-
32.47
-
32.08
-
XBridge (Ours)
32.24
21.66
35.86
28.67
34.65
26.33
Appendix
Table 14: Detailed FLORES-101 translation results for LLaMA3-8B composed with M2M100-1.2B. "Lrl" and "Hrl" denote low- and high-resource languages, respectively. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for the LLM group.
System
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
SFT
38.80
46.40
54.00
54.80
44.40
38.80
45.20
40.80
44.00
49.20
45.64
Translate-Test
40.40
56.00
62.00
54.80
54.80
51.60
57.20
46.80
35.20
48.00
50.68
MindMerger
52.40
55.60
62.40
55.60
59.60
50.40
58.40
47.60
50.80
56.40
54.92
LayerAlign
51.20
60.00
65.20
58.00
55.60
50.00
59.20
49.20
50.80
54.00
55.32
XBridge_LLM (Ours)
49.20
57.20
66.00
60.80
52.80
54.40
54.80
47.20
52.80
60.00
55.52
XBridge_Dec (Ours)
48.40
53.20
62.80
59.20
48.40
53.20
54.00
44.40
48.40
58.80
53.08
Appendix
Table 15: Detailed MGSM results for LLaMA3-8B composed with M2M100-1.2B. "XBridge-LLM" denotes English reasoning outputs from the LLM, while "XBridge-Dec" denotes multilingual reasoning outputs via the external decoder. We bold the best scores for the LLM group.
System
Lrl-En
En-Lrl
Hrl-En
En-Hrl
X-En
En-X
NLLB-200-600M
33.59
26.43
34.83
29.52
34.42
28.49
NLLB-200-1.3B
37.09
28.86
37.72
32.08
37.51
31.00
MetaMath-7B
2.87
1.05
26.50
17.36
18.62
11.92
XBridge (600M)
31.20
23.42
29.46
26.55
30.04
25.50
XBridge (1.3B)
35.26
26.91
32.42
31.24
33.37
29.80
Appendix
Table 16: Detailed FLORES-101 translation results for MetaMath-7B composed with NLLB-200 in different sizes (600M vs. 1.3B). "Lrl" and "Hrl" denote low- and high-resource languages, respectively. "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for the LLM group.
System
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
SFT
38.80
46.40
54.00
54.80
44.40
38.80
45.20
40.80
44.00
49.20
45.64
XBridge_LLM (600M)
47.60
56.00
65.60
56.00
56.00
47.20
56.00
50.80
49.20
50.00
53.44
XBridge_Dec (600M)
45.20
52.80
65.60
55.60
51.60
44.40
54.40
50.80
46.00
49.20
51.56
XBridge_LLM (1.3B)
48.40
54.80
67.20
60.80
57.20
47.20
57.60
46.40
45.60
52.80
53.80
XBridge_Dec (1.3B)
47.20
52.80
66.80
60.00
51.60
44.80
56.00
45.60
44.40
52.00
52.12
Appendix
Table 17: Detailed FLORES-101 translation results for MetaMath-7B composed with NLLB-200 in different sizes (600M vs. 1.3B). "X" denotes all languages except for English. We bold the best scores for the LLM group.
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
Multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with cross-lingual tasks due to data imbalances between high-resource and low-resource languages, as well as monolingual bias in pre-training. Existing methods, such as bilingual fine-tuning and contrastive alignment, can improve cross-lingual performance, but they often require extensive parallel data or suffer from instability. To address these challenges, we introduce a Cross-Lingual Mapping Task during the pre-training phase, which enhances cross-lingual alignment without compromising monolingual fluency. Our approach bi-directionally maps languages within the LLM embedding space, improving both language generation and comprehension. We further propose a Language Alignment Coefficient to robustly quantify cross-lingual consistency, even in limited-data scenarios. Experimental results on machine translation (MT), cross-lingual natural language understanding (CLNLU), and cross-lingual question answering (CLQA) show that our model achieves gains of up to 11.9 BLEU points in MT, 6.72 points in CLQA BERTScore-Precision, and more than 5% in CLNLU accuracy over strong multilingual baselines. These findings highlight the potential of incorporating cross-lingual objectives into pre-training to improve multilingual LLMs.
Weihua Zheng, Chang Liu, Zhengyuan Liu +5
Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore · ByteDance, Singapore · Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
We investigate how large language models perform on low-resource languages by benchmarking eight LLMs across five experimental conditions in English, Kazakh, and Mongolian. Using 50 hand-crafted questions spanning factual, reasoning, technical, and culturally grounded categories, we evaluate 2,000 responses on accuracy, fluency, and completeness. We find a consistent performance gap of 13.8-16.7 percentage points between English and low-resource language conditions, with models maintaining surface-level fluency while producing significantly less accurate content. Cross-lingual transfer-prompting models to reason in English before translating back-yields selective gains for bilingual architectures (+2.2pp to +4.3pp) but provides no benefit to English-dominant models. Our results demonstrate that current LLMs systematically underserve low-resource language communities, and that effective mitigation strategies are architecture-dependent rather than universal.