Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

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.

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.

Cross-lingual transfer is a model's ability to generalize capabilities from well-represented source languages to under-represented target languages. Existing measures of a model's transfer strength conflate improvements in transfer with general improvements to accuracy in the source language. We advocate for an alternate metric that reliably captures transfer strength called Hardness Adjusted Transfer (HAT) Score, and use it to derive multiple insights on factors influencing transfer strength. Our analysis across twenty diverse language models and three popular mainstream multilingual benchmarks argues that 1) transfer in small models is not broken, 2) we are making slower than expected progress in cross-lingual transfer with model size, and 3) we have made clear progress over time.