Predicting Multilingual Classification and Translation Performance of LLMs with Cross-Lingual Alignment \unicode{x2013} Is English Enough?

Language models are often evaluated as though capabilities demonstrated in English remain equally available when the same content is presented in other languages. Traditional multilingual benchmarks rarely isolate language while holding content, question, reference answer, model, and evaluation unit constant. We define the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap (CLCG) as the reduction in response quality when the same content and question are presented in a target language rather than in English. Using ParallelQA-18, a professionally human-translated parallel corpus, we evaluate five models from five laboratories on a stratified sample of 150 articles across 18 languages (English reference; Portuguese high-resource baseline; 16 targets spanning Joshi et al. 2020 classes 0-4). A within-item design varies only passage language. The primary estimator contrasts English versus pooled target-language Token-F1 micro-means on higher-complexity open-ended questions, with article-cluster bootstrap intervals. The primary pooled CLCG is 0.078 (95% CI 0.072-0.084), about a 17% reduction relative to the English score; the equal-language macro summary is 0.077. Net of Portuguese, the macro gap is 0.016 (95% CI 0.013-0.020). Language-level CLCG is negatively associated with Joshi resource class (rho = -0.594, p = 0.015, n = 16). In blinded paired human evaluations, higher-resource responses are preferred in 61.6% of decisive judgments (estimated preference probability 0.655, 95% CI 0.558-0.741). Capabilities shown in English should not be assumed to transfer equally to other languages; English-centered evaluations may overestimate quality for users of low-resource languages.

Translation-based prompting is widely used in multilingual LLMs, yet its effectiveness varies across languages and tasks. We evaluate prompting strategies across ten languages of different resource levels and four benchmarks. Our analysis shows that no single strategy is universally optimal. Translation strongly benefits low-resource languages even when translation quality is imperfect, high-resource languages gain little, and prompt-based self-routing underperforms explicit translation. Motivated by these findings, we formulate prompting strategy selection as a learned decision problem and introduce lightweight classifiers that predict whether native or translation-based prompting is optimal for each instance. The classifiers achieve statistically significant improvements over fixed strategies across four benchmarks and generalize to unseen task formats not observed during training. Further analysis reveals that language resource level, rather than translation quality alone, determines when translation is beneficial.

Machine-translated benchmarks are widely used to assess the multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet translation errors in these benchmarks remain underexplored, raising concerns about the reliability and comparability of multilingual evaluation. We address two practical gaps: (i) how well automatic MQM-style error spans from LLM judges and a span-aware QE baseline (xCOMET-XXL) match expert human span annotations on benchmark translations, and (ii) how strongly translation errors (as opposed to source-side issues in the English original) explain accuracy drops on translated benchmarks. We find that span agreement is non-trivial on naturally occurring benchmark translations, and that target-side translation errors are consistently associated with measurable, percentage-point drops in translated accuracy even after controlling for English correctness and source-side anomalies.