Lost in the Tower of Babel: The Adverse Effects of Incidental Multilingualism in LLMs

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.

Multilingual LLMs are increasingly used when instruction, source content, and required response languages do not coincide. Existing benchmarks have expanded multilingual instruction-following evaluation, but they rarely isolate these three roles within a fully crossed design. We introduce MTM-Bench, a controlled benchmark for language-conditioned task execution in which each instance is defined by a triplet $(L_{\text{instr}}, L_{\text{content}}, L_{\text{resp}})$. Across English, Spanish, and Chinese, MTM-Bench enumerates all 27 triplets and contains 2{,}430 instances per model across semantic reversal, final-state extraction, and language purity with update realization. We evaluate 20 frontier and open-weight LLMs using decomposed metrics for semantic correctness, target-language adherence, constraint satisfaction, contamination ratio, and joint success, with scoring validated by a targeted human audit. The fully crossed design reveals that degradation is organized by the role a language occupies in the task structure, not merely by mismatch count. The response-language role is the dominant axis of variation, and a single response-slot mismatch accounts for most degradation. The response-only and full-mismatch comparison suggests that mismatch count is not a monotonic predictor of difficulty, with model-level ordering varying across systems. Task families fail through distinct channels, showing that semantic correctness alone does not capture reliable multilingual task execution.

Latent language identification is often used to argue that multilingual language models route computation through language-specific states, such as English pivots. However, existing probes infer latent language from different signals, such as the geometry of hidden states or what can be decoded from intermediate representations. Since such claims shape conclusions about how models share and route information across languages, we ask whether these probes measure the same phenomenon or expose distinct aspects of multilingual computation. We study this question across model families, training regimes, domains, tasks, checkpoints, and up to 27 languages. We find that identification probes systematically disagree: the GMM-based representation probe, which draws evidence from hidden state geometry, shows earlier cross-lingual mixing, whereas decoding-based probes, which rely on output-space decodability, retain sharper language-specific and more English-biased signals. These differences track model multilinguality and training progression, but are comparatively stable across domains. Our results suggest a more cautious interpretation of latent language identification, where current probes expose different aspects of multilingual processing, rather than directly revealing a single internal lingua franca.