Investigating the Influence of Prompt and Response Languages on LLM Content Generation

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.

LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation is increasingly applied to multilingual tasks, yet prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought and Role Conditioning are recommended based solely on English benchmarks. Whether their effectiveness transfers across judge models and languages remains unknown: prompt-sensitivity studies are largely English-centric, while existing multilingual judge studies fix the prompt template. In this work, we address this gap by measuring this interaction through a benchmark of 9 prompting strategies, 4 open-weight judges, 27 languages, and 4 tasks across 13 datasets, yielding over 1M pointwise scores on gold-reference outputs, validated against human judgments. We find that prompting strategies are not transferable: the choice of the judge model dominates the choice of prompting strategy, strategy effects reverse direction across judges, and stability degrades in low-resource languages, where these effects are concealed by aggregate reporting. These findings show that prompting effects in multilingual evaluation are conditioned on the judge, task, and language. Consequently, prompting strategies should be validated for the intended evaluation setting, and cross-study comparisons should account for both judge and prompt configuration.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by people whose first language is not English, yet these users have been shown to receive systematically lower-quality responses than fluent speakers. Which specific features of non-native English drive this gap remains unclear, because fluency is itself a composite of mechanical accuracy, vocabulary use, organization, and discourse coherence. Here, we introduce FABLE, a controlled dataset of 190,911 English prompt variants derived from 174K real user prompts for writing-related tasks. Evaluating responses from 34 open-weight LLMs, we find a clear asymmetry; while models do not propagate surface errors such as misspellings into their outputs, models do mirror higher-level rhetorical and lexical qualities present in the user's prompt. Further, the overall quality of responses differs substantially between the least- and most-fluent prompts. These results highlight a key LLM performance disparity for non-native English LLM users, resulting in both lower-quality and less-fluent answers.