Multilinguality at the Edge: Developing Language Models for the Global South

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multilingual settings, yet the energy costs of serving these models across different languages remain poorly understood. We present a systematic study of inference energy consumption across languages with ML.Energy framework (Chung et al., 2026). We find striking disparities: energy consumption per output token varies by up to 8.3 times across languages, while total energy for a fixed set of requests varies by up to 179 times between the cheapest (English, 17.6 kJ) and the most expensive (Pashto, 3,147 kJ) languages. Our analysis shows that this disparity is driven by two compounding factors: (1) higher per-token energy costs for languages using complex or rare scripts, and (2) more tokens generated for low-resource languages. Moreover, we find a double cost + performance penalty: languages with the highest energy footprints also tend to achieve the lowest task accuracy. We reveal that the energy divide persists across models, hardware, and tasks, suggesting a systemic energy inequity in multilingual LLM deployment. Finally, we recommend that the community treat energy as a first-class evaluation axis, extend reporting checklists and model cards to include it, and adopt deployment-side mitigations for better energy efficiency.

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) 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.