Multilinguality of Large Language Models From a Structural Perspective

Through an analysis of sequences generated by open-weight large language models (LLMs), we demonstrate that LLMs are heavily biased toward English. While continual pre-training is commonly used to adapt LLMs to a target language, we show that it does not offer a cost advantage over training from scratch, even for improving cultural understanding in the target language. These findings suggest that dedicated per-language investment may become increasingly important for future LLM development, rather than relying primarily on the expansion of English-centric resources.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) grow more capable across diverse tasks, their (in)ability to generalize remains difficult to quantify and poorly understood beyond limited domains. In particular, LLMs are known to struggle generalizing multilingually, to languages outside of English, and that are poorly attested in their training data. To understand why this may be, and what enables some models to perform better than others, we turn to a long history of work across the cognitive sciences, arguing that successful generalization derives from appropriate representations in similarity space. We look at how well LLMs' representations capture the hierarchical similarity structure between distinct languages. Strikingly, we show LLMs' latent representations largely recover the hierarchical structure of the Indo-European language family tree -- grouping languages that are members of the same subfamily closely together in representation space. Furthermore, we show that the degree to which models reflect the similarity structure of languages correlates with their performance on XNLI, a multilingual natural language inference benchmark. This extends classic work on similarity-driven generalization at scale, showing how models that represent similar languages similarly generalize better from one language to another.

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.