Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in English mathematical reasoning, yet a significant performance disparity persists in multilingual contexts, largely attributed to deficiencies in language understanding. To bridge this gap, we introduce Translation-Augmented Policy Optimization (TAPO), a novel reinforcement learning framework built upon GRPO. TAPO enforces an explicit alignment strategy where the model leverages English as a pivot and follows an understand-then-reason paradigm. Crucially, we employ a step-level relative advantage mechanism that decouples understanding from reasoning, allowing the integration of translation quality rewards without introducing optimization conflicts. Extensive experiments reveal that TAPO effectively synergizes language understanding with reasoning capabilities and is compatible with various models. It outperforms baseline methods in both multilingual mathematical reasoning and translation tasks, while generalizing well to unseen languages and out-of-domain tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Problem-level relationship between translation quality and reasoning accuracy on MGSM. Each point represents a distinct non-English problem, for which the accuracy of the corresponding English problem is over 0.9. The results are generated by Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct with 100 runs. The x-axis indicates the mean ChrF++ score of the translation, while the y-axis shows the overall accuracy. The dashed line represents the line of best fit, with the Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.583 , p<1e−5 .
Figure 2: The performance of Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct on MGSM with different prompts. The full prompts are in Appendix A . The last two are the same as Translate-Test, but the model’s translation is replaced with Gemini2.5-Flash’s and the reference, respectively.
Figure 3: The illustration of the step-level relative advantage calculation in TAPO.
Model
Trained Languages
Avg
Untrained Languages
Total Avg
Bn
Ja
Sw
Te
Th
De
En
Es
Fr
Ru
Zh
Qwen
56.5
67.2
13.2
19.9
67.5
44.8
77.7
85.5
78.0
75.0
79.0
73.6
44.8
+ SFT-TransTest
2.8
8.8
2.0
1.6
10.0
5.0
26.0
85.6
28.0
29.6
23.2
47.2
24.1
+ QAlign
32.0
46.4
6.4
10.8
50.0
29.1
61.2
70.8
62.4
60.0
60.4
63.6
47.6
+ RAFT
60.7
62.4
24.6
36.8
68.1
50.5
71.6
80.4
73.8
69.0
71.3
70.3
62.6
+ GRPO-EnCoT
75.2
78.7
39.0
51.0
82.2
65.2
84.0
89.4
84.7
82.7
85.8
81.4
75.8
Table 1: The performance of each model based on Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Llama3.2-3B-Instruct, respectively. The highest scores in each column are in bold. The x in TAPO-x is the translation metric function. CK is short for CometKiwi .
Model
Bn
De
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Te
Th
Zh
Avg
Qwen
58.60
84.07
87.30
85.89
81.10
87.28
7.72
17.82
77.68
86.72
67.42
+ GRPO-EnCoT
62.97
83.58
87.88
86.66
80.26
88.88
18.18
29.31
77.99
83.66
69.94
+ GRPO-TransTest
62.59
82.69
86.76
85.89
79.91
86.85
19.94
33.67
79.09
83.87
70.12
+ TAPO-CK
67.06
85.82
89.02
87.21
82.48
87.51
30.03
42.90
80.96
85.67
73.87
+ TAPO- xCOMET
70.88
51.49
51.52
54.85
84.47
87.07
0.00
41.64
82.71
85.72
61.04
+ TAPO-ChrF++
68.89
87.47
89.83
87.11
83.32
88.80
29.29
42.37
82.70
86.60
74.64
Table 2: The Gemini Scores of each model on the task of translating the MGSM problems from non-English to English. The score of each sample is averaged by eight random runs.
Model
MMATH
MSVAMP
Qwen
54.25
77.55
+ GRPO-EnCoT
55.85
77.28
+ GRPO-TransTest
57.63
76.39
+ TAPO-ChrF++
56.77
80.21
Llama
28.07
61.43
+ GRPO-EnCoT
42.22
73.75
Table 3: The performance of each model on OOD tasks. The scores are averaged across all the languages in the benchmarks.
Type
MGSM
MMATH
MSVAMP
Qwen
Traj-level
75.45
56.37
78.35
Step-level
77.08
56.77
80.21
Llama
Traj-level
74.11
42.13
75.87
Step-level
76.41
43.78
77.25
Table 4: The comparison between the trajectory-level reward by addition and our step-level reward. Scores are averaged across all languages.
Figure 4: The proportions of false positive and false negative advantages across each training step. The overall proportion is the sum of the two proportions.
Figure 5: The average number of response tokens on MGSM across all languages. Each bar represents total number of tokens of a response, and the hatched area represents the number of translation tokens.
Figure 6: Accuracy and Gemini Score trends for Qwen and Llama models trained by TAPO-ChrF++ across different α values.
Figure 7: The validation scores of Qwen + TAPO-ChrF++. The bold lines are smoothed by Exponential Moving Average.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Bn
De
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Te
Th
Zh
Avg
Qwen
55.57
70.06
72.87
65.20
59.39
67.73
33.69
40.68
57.97
62.00
58.52
+ GRPO-EnCot
56.85
70.49
73.00
64.97
59.07
68.13
41.57
44.16
58.50
60.14
59.69
+ GRPO-TransTest
54.76
68.84
71.25
63.42
56.96
66.42
41.22
44.32
56.99
59.27
58.35
+ TAPO-CK
58.56
70.65
72.77
64.54
59.38
66.92
47.18
50.59
59.30
60.61
61.05
+ TAPO- xCOMET
58.11
48.54
49.98
47.86
61.22
67.41
15.68
49.36
60.12
60.52
51.88
+ TAPO-ChrF++
63.93
74.34
75.83
67.49
64.67
71.48
51.64
56.87
63.71
64.68
65.46
Appendix
Table 8: The ChrF++ scores of each model on the task of translating the MGSM problems from non-English to English. The score of each sample is averaged by eight random runs.
Model
Bn
De
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Te
Th
Zh
Avg
Qwen
33.75
52.92
57.28
46.55
37.92
50.01
14.18
18.26
34.33
41.19
38.64
+ GRPO-EnCot
35.04
53.48
57.67
46.16
37.77
50.51
20.61
22.00
34.10
39.37
39.67
+ GRPO-TransTest
34.28
51.78
55.49
44.32
35.81
48.81
21.54
21.70
35.31
38.29
38.73
+ TAPO-CK
38.57
53.49
57.58
45.51
38.47
48.63
27.70
29.54
38.05
39.83
41.74
+ TAPO- xCOMET
34.37
31.99
34.10
28.79
40.41
48.66
1.83
26.17
37.08
40.04
32.35
+ TAPO-ChrF++
42.08
58.41
60.88
49.49
43.98
54.33
30.71
33.84
40.51
44.65
45.89
Appendix
Table 9: The BLEU scores of each model on the task of translating the MGSM problems from non-English to English. The score of each sample is averaged by eight random runs.
Model
Ar
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ko
Pt
Th
Vi
Zh
Avg
Qwen
52.07
56.78
56.32
56.32
52.01
52.71
56.35
51.97
52.67
55.31
54.25
+ GRPO-EnCoT
53.44
58.52
57.45
57.09
54.85
54.48
57.55
53.94
54.91
56.25
55.85
+ GRPO-TransTest
55.45
59.79
58.79
58.82
56.82
56.95
58.42
55.41
58.05
57.79
57.63
+ TAPO-ChrF++
55.48
59.39
58.05
58.46
55.15
54.88
57.55
55.51
56.02
57.22
56.77
Llama
24.30
37.77
32.22
31.68
24.80
21.56
30.58
24.10
24.23
29.45
28.07
+ GRPO-EnCoT
34.73
48.09
44.05
44.95
40.51
38.30
44.79
42.68
40.68
43.45
42.22
Appendix
Table 10: The detailed performance in each language on MMATH.
Model
Bn
De
En
Es
Fr
Ja
Ru
Sw
Th
Zh
Avg
Qwen
68.46
85.25
89.10
85.45
86.05
82.48
83.59
33.81
76.78
84.49
77.55
+ GRPO-EnCoT
69.36
81.49
85.61
81.18
81.98
80.13
79.78
56.73
75.54
80.99
77.28
+ GRPO-TransTest
68.78
80.23
84.06
79.24
80.70
78.11
79.49
59.03
74.43
79.86
76.39
+ TAPO-ChrF++
72.38
83.96
86.75
83.10
84.31
82.51
82.51
65.96
77.88
82.71
80.21
Llama
39.30
69.61
78.88
72.60
71.15
60.20
67.99
30.30
56.75
67.49
61.43
+ GRPO-EnCoT
62.85
77.11
83.91
77.55
77.81
73.26
75.68
67.16
67.91
74.21
73.75
Appendix
Table 11: The detailed performance in each language on MSVAMP.
Recent advances in Reinforcement Post-Training (RPT) have substantially improved the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), but it remains unclear how well such gains transfer across languages. In this work, we study cross-lingual mathematical reasoning transfer in English-centric LLMs under controlled multilingual evaluation. We first evaluate a range of English-centric reasoning models on multilingual mathematical reasoning benchmarks and find that transfer is highly variable across initial model choice, target language, and training paradigm. Through controlled comparative experiments, we further find that stronger English-centric initialization does not necessarily lead to stronger relative transfer efficiency, even when it yields higher multilingual reasoning accuracy. Finally, we show that the largest improvement comes from moving beyond English-only supervision: adding a single parallel language yields a substantial gain, while further gains from additional languages are smaller but consistent. Overall, our results highlight the need to evaluate multilingual mathematical reasoning directly, using both absolute performance and relative transfer-efficiency metrics.
Wen Yang, Junhong Wu, Chong Li +2
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Wuhan AI Research
While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) show strong performance in English, they often fail to reason in the language of the query, a phenomenon known as language collapse. Existing RL-based fixes typically add a binary language fidelity reward to the accuracy objective, yet still incur trade-off in accuracy, mid-trace code-switching, and excessive token usage. In this work, we propose AdaMame, a two-stage training recipe for multilingual mathematical reasoning that addresses these limitations by adaptively aligning the reasoning language to the query language without compromising accuracy. The first SFT stage fine-tunes on non-MT reasoning traces across five languages to establish multilingual reasoning capability. In the subsequent RL stage, we introduce AdaMame-GRPO, an adaptation of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in which a query-conditioned alignment factor grows progressively during training, guiding the model to first explore diverse reasoning languages before exploiting reasoning in the query language. Evaluated across two benchmarks, two LRMs, and 12 languages, AdaMame-GRPO achieves Pareto-optimal performance across reasoning accuracy, language fidelity, and token efficiency over all baselines, with the strongest gains on out-of-domain, lower-resource languages.
Reinforcement learning has proven effective for enhancing multi-step reasoning in large language models (LLMs), yet its benefits have not fully translated to multilingual contexts. Existing methods struggle with a fundamental trade-off: prioritizing input-language consistency severely hampers reasoning quality, while prioritizing reasoning often leads to unintended language drift toward English. We address this challenge with LANG, a novel framework that leverages language-conditioned hints to guide exploration in non-English reasoning tasks. Our method incorporates two key mechanisms to prevent dependency on these hints: a progressive decay schedule that gradually withdraws scaffolding, and a language-adaptive switch that tailors learning horizons to specific language difficulties. Empirical results on challenging multilingual mathematical benchmarks reveal that LANG substantially enhances reasoning performance without compromising language consistency. Moreover, we show that our framework generalizes beyond mathematics, fostering more consistent language alignment across model layers
Yuchun Fan, Bei Li, Peiguang Li +9
NLP Lab, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China · Meituan Inc. 3NiuTrans Research, Shenyang, China