Hidden Language Consistency Phenomena in Reasoning 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.

We introduce mmPISA-bench, a compact high-quality multilingual reasoning benchmark derived from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The benchmark consists of 25 multiple-choice questions that require reasoning in order to be answered correctly. Each question is provided in official human translations to 43 languages and complemented with machine-translated counterparts (i.e., 2,150 data points in total). We evaluate two mainstream proprietary LLMs across languages, reasoning effort levels, and translation types in terms of their ability to answer the questions correctly. Our results show that modern LLMs can reason effectively across all evaluated languages, achieve accuracy comparable to human test-takers, with some performance variations across covered languages. We further find that machine-translated questions do not degrade accuracy relative to official human translations which suggests that high-quality machine translation (synthetic data) might often be adequate for large-scale multilingual reasoning evaluations where official translations are not available. Finally, we analyze token usage and related inference cost and find that LLMs usage in some languages is simultaneously more expensive and less accurate.

As LLMs reduce English-centric bias, a surprising trend emerges: non-English responses sometimes outperform English on reasoning tasks. We hypothesize that language functions as a latent variable that structurally modulates the model's internal inference pathways, rather than merely serving as an output medium. To test this, we conducted a Polyglot Thinking Experiment, in which models were prompted to solve identical problems under language-constrained and language-unconstrained conditions. Results show that non-English responses often achieve higher accuracy, and the best performance frequently occur when language is unconstrained, suggesting that multilinguality broadens the model's latent reasoning space. Based on this insight, we propose polyGRPO (Polyglot Group Relative Policy Optimization), an RL framework that treats language variation as an implicit exploration signal. It generates polyglot preference data online under language-constrained and unconstrained conditions, optimizing the policy with respect to both answer accuracy and reasoning structure. Trained on only 18.1K multilingual math problems without chain-of-thought annotations, polyGRPO improves the base model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) by 6.72% absolute accuracy on four English reasoning testset and 6.89% in their multilingual benchmark. Remarkably, it is the only method that surpasses the base LLM on English commonsense reasoning task (4.9%), despite being trained solely on math data-highlighting its strong cross-task generalization. Further analysis reveals that treating language as a latent variable expands the model's latent reasoning space, yielding consistent and generalizable improvements in reasoning performance.