English is Not All You Need: Systematically Exploring the Role of Multilinguality in LLM Post-Training

Large language models (LLMs) have excelled in processing multiple languages through pre- and post-training on multilingual data, even though English dominates the training data. Prior work focusing on token representations has revealed how those LLMs process non-English text. Although these analyses have provided insightful findings, they fail to capture a structural view, which is an inherent property of language. In this study, we explore the multilinguality of LLMs through representational structural analysis. Our findings reveal that low-resource languages are structurally more different from English than high- and mid-resource languages, and that language-specific post-training alters their structures while preserving inter-language relationships.

Multilingual Large Language Models (mLLMs) leaderboards report per-language accuracy but rarely explain why disparities emerge, leaving systemic biases unattributed and offering practitioners no actionable levers. We first establish that these gaps are systematic rather than artifacts of sampling noise via distribution-free Friedman and Kruskal--Wallis tests, then introduce a two-step Bayesian hierarchical framework that decomposes multilingual performance variance into interpretable components. First, isolating the variance attributable to language identity, we show that observable language features (script, family, typological distance) explain $R^2_{\text{ling}} = 79\%$ of this variance on understanding tasks and $92\%$ on reasoning, with a model's internal representational similarity to English emerging as the dominant predictor across both task buckets. Second, decomposing the full (model$\times$benchmark$\times$language) cube, we find that NLU and reasoning have fundamentally divergent variance profiles: model identity dominates understanding ($66.7\%$ of variance), whereas the benchmark$\times$model interaction dominates reasoning ($46.3\%$). Together these results recast multilingual evaluation from passive performance mapping into an explainable, diagnostic framework with concrete levers for targeting the root drivers of language disparity.

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for API calling degrades in multilingual settings. A common failure occurs when a model selects the correct tool but generates argument values in an inconsistent language, which we term Argument Language Mismatch (ALM). Although semantically correct, such outputs are operationally invalid and not captured by standard API-calling metrics. We revisit post-training strategies for mitigating ALM and find that, in our benchmark, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) provides a strong baseline, substantially improving argument language consistency and end-to-end function call accuracy. Under consistent model selection, SFT achieves performance comparable to, and sometimes exceeding more complex reinforcement learning (RL) approaches. We further examine whether RL with structured, argument-aware rewards offers additional benefits. While methods such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) can improve language consistency and better preserve general reasoning ability, these gains are incremental and most pronounced in generalization and multi-objective trade-offs. Overall, our results suggest that much of the performance in multilingual API grounding can be achieved through careful supervised training, with RL providing targeted rather than fundamental improvements.