Latent-Space Intervention for Cross-Lingual Factual Consistency: Consistency Improvements without Accuracy Drops
Authors: Faeze Ghorbanpour, Constanza Fierro, Alexander Fraser, Anders Søgaard
Organizations: School of Computation, Information and Technology, TU Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML) · Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
Large Language Models (LLMs) often answer the same factual question differently across languages. We study whether cross-lingual latent-space intervention can reduce this inconsistency. We train layer-specific autoencoders on parallel multilingual representations and apply inference-time corrections to factual QA prompts. We find that latent intervention improves geometric alignment between languages, and that this improvement translates into consistent gains in cross-lingual consistency with English across both open-ended and multiple-choice QA formats, without degrading factual accuracy. In open-ended QA, Spearman's rank correlation between English and non-English languages improves substantially, with gains of 0.16 for English-Arabic and 0.20 for English-Russian pairs. In multiple-choice QA, answer agreement with English improves consistently across both KLAR and mParaRel. Ablations show that AE reconstruction yields consistent gains at no accuracy cost, while PCA projection contributes marginally, and mean-shift produces substantially larger consistency gains in open-ended QA at the cost of some accuracy.
Figures & tables
KLAR OE
KLAR MC
mParaRel MC
Intervention
Acc
Rank Corr (en)
Acc
Agr (en)
Acc
Agr (en)
Raw
No intervention
56.77
6.68
85.59
85.09
85.91
86.70
+ Mean-shift
53.78
14.09
85.59
85.01
81.09
76.02
+ PCA
56.72
6.81
85.56
84.97
85.86
86.29
AE
No intervention
56.40
7.77
85.32
85.43
86.35
86.97
+ Mean-shift
53.45
24.91
85.42
85.41
85.91
86.68
Table 1: Average accuracy (%) and consistency with English across strategies at the best layer per setting. Rank Corr (en) is the average Spearman rank correlation ( ×100 ) across English-paired language pairs. Agr (en) is the average answer agreement (%) with English. Bold indicates best result per column.
KLAR OE Rank Corr
KLAR MC Agreement
mParaRel MC Agreement
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Raw
2.52
16.21
4.55
3.45
66.17
94.65
90.87
88.66
84.31
90.06
87.33
85.09
AE
2.51
17.83
4.93
5.82
66.36
95.23
91.22
88.89
84.80
90.55
87.43
85.19
+ PCA
3.77
18.52
5.85
4.84
66.44
95.19
91.22
88.85
84.80
90.45
87.43
85.19
+ Mean-shift
18.17
38.27
24.35
18.86
66.82
95.23
91.18
88.81
84.30
90.90
86.71
85.80
Table 2: Pairwise English consistency before and after intervention at the best layer per setting. Rank Corr values are Spearman rank correlation ( ×100 ). Agreement values are answer agreement (%).
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: t-SNE visualizations of FLORES+ parallel sentence representations in the raw LLM space (left) and AE latent space (right) at layers 20, 24, and 28. Colors indicate languages.
Figure 2: First row: Cosine similarity to English before and after latent-space intervention across layers for open-ended and multiple-choice QA (KLAR and mParaRel). Second row: First-token accuracy (%) before and after latent-space intervention across layers for open-ended and Multiple-choice QA (KLAR and mParaRel). Dashed lines show before intervention; solid lines show after intervention.
Variant
Cosine
P@1
Raw LLM space
67.61
38.36
w/o self-reconstruction loss
13.92
0.84
w/o alignment loss
76.02
83.22
Full objective
86.51
95.46
Appendix
Table 3: Loss ablation on FLORES+ with Llama-3.1-8B. Cosine is the average cosine similarity between parallel sentence pairs; P@1 is parallel-sentence retrieval accuracy (%).
Open-ended QA
Multiple-choice QA
Method
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
Raw
21.70
38.55
19.46
6.84
21.64
45.85
48.76
89.58
87.06
79.84
76.31
78.21
PCA
24.27
37.95
19.31
7.31
22.21
45.48
48.76
89.69
87.40
79.92
76.44
78.25
Mean-shift
22.98
36.93
20.75
4.32
21.25
42.31
50.63
88.85
85.76
80.26
76.38
78.21
AE
20.71
40.29
20.96
8.84
22.70
49.00
50.13
89.77
87.74
80.41
77.01
78.55
+ PCA
24.48
41.18
21.61
6.61
23.47
48.51
50.36
89.73
87.86
80.18
77.03
78.59
Appendix
Table 4: Llama-3.1-8B on KLAR. Open-ended values are Spearman rank correlation ( ×100 ) with English; multiple-choice values are answer agreement (%) with English. Acc is factual accuracy (%). Bold indicates best result per column.
Open-ended QA
Multiple-choice QA
Method
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
Raw
14.60
26.93
3.97
-0.92
11.15
37.89
68.61
94.50
92.21
91.22
86.64
87.51
PCA
16.09
27.46
4.29
0.89
12.18
37.33
69.07
94.46
92.36
91.33
86.81
87.60
Mean-shift
1.92
20.58
7.33
12.95
10.70
27.50
72.70
94.35
91.79
90.68
87.38
88.25
AE
15.31
29.90
4.98
-0.84
12.34
37.55
69.03
93.97
92.33
91.56
86.72
87.45
+ PCA
14.38
29.27
4.65
0.52
12.21
37.47
68.92
94.04
92.36
91.49
86.70
87.44
Appendix
Table 5: Qwen-3-8B on KLAR. Open-ended values are Spearman rank correlation ( ×100 ) with English; multiple-choice values are answer agreement (%) with English. Acc is factual accuracy (%). Bold indicates best result per column.
Open-ended QA
Multiple-choice QA
Layer
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
ar-en
en-nl
en-ru
en-zh
Avg
Acc
Raw
21.70
38.55
19.46
6.84
21.64
45.85
48.76
89.58
87.06
79.84
76.31
78.21
Two-phase
L20
18.71
38.29
20.96
8.84
21.70
49.00
50.82
88.35
86.75
81.37
76.82
78.12
L24
21.56
39.29
19.03
5.78
21.42
48.89
50.13
89.77
87.74
80.41
77.01
78.55
L28
22.16
37.53
17.97
6.14
20.95
49.14
49.37
89.00
87.13
81.02
76.63
77.99
L31
17.92
34.55
17.51
7.76
19.44
40.75
43.26
85.76
80.64
73.77
70.86
71.35
Appendix
Table 6: Two-phase versus joint training of the autoencoder and language-specific decoders, evaluated on KLAR with Llama-3.1-8B. Open-ended values are Spearman rank correlation ( ×100 ) with English; multiple-choice values are answer agreement (%) with English.
Cross-lingual consistency in language models studies whether equivalent inputs across languages produce comparable knowledge, reasoning, and safety behavior.
Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages. This leads to cross-lingual factual inconsistency, where they shift their empirical answer distributions based solely on the prompt language. We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages (German, Spanish, Bulgarian), and evaluate four intervention strategies: zero-shot contextual steering (persona prompting), internal representation manipulation via Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA), and lightweight weight modification via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) trained on benchmark-derived factual data as well as conceptual generalization data. To assess alignment, we curate a multilingual factual dataset alongside a novel generalization benchmark comprising culturally rooted queries to determine whether factual interventions transfer to broader target-centric preferences. Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization. While CAA yields sharp inconsistency benchmark shifts, it is configuration-sensitive and risks knowledge degradation. DPO-based adapters offer permanent, yet narrower and less transferable gains. These findings suggest that cross-lingual inconsistency is at least partly a selection problem, and that simple contextual interventions may outperform more invasive methods for robust, transferable alignment.
Large language models (LLMs) trained predominantly on English data encode substantial world knowledge, yet often fail to express it reliably in other languages, a phenomenon known as cross-lingual factual inconsistency. To study and address this, we introduce PolyFact, a large-scale parallel multilingual factual QA dataset containing 100K Wikidata-grounded facts across 12 typologically diverse languages. Using PolyFact, we compare light continual pretraining (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) for improving cross-lingual factual recall in Qwen-2.5-7B and OLMo-2-1124-7B. We find that GRPO consistently outperforms SFT, improving both cross-lingual consistency and generalization to unseen languages, while CPT on parallel data yields limited additional gains. Mechanistic analyses further show that GRPO reorganizes multilingual routing by reducing language specialization in MLP layers and attention heads, thereby promoting more shared cross-lingual representations. We release our code, models, and dataset.
Jonathan von Rad, Louis Arts, George Burgess +6
University College London, Centre for Artificial Intelligence
Multilingual language models often produce inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions across languages, motivating methods to improve cross-lingual consistency (CLC). However, existing methods are typically evaluated using different models, tasks, and protocols, leaving their relative strengths unclear. In this work, we present a unified evaluation of representative CLC-enhancement methods for question answering, spanning inference-time interventions and post-training approaches across three model families and three closed-form benchmarks. The results show that post-training methods are generally more reliable, with direct distribution alignment consistently improving CLC across all model-dataset combinations, while other methods are more sensitive to answer format and the breadth of language coverage. Notably, cross-domain transfer is limited unless source and target tasks share similar output formats. We further investigate whether CLC enhancement hurts models' ability to respond differently when needed, that is, when asked culture-dependent questions. Across two benchmarks of culturally diverse question answering, we find no systematic degradation in controlled closed-form evaluation, whereas open-ended generation reveals occasional accuracy reductions, particularly for non-English responses. Our work highlights the need to evaluate CLC enhancement for both cross-domain robustness and culturally appropriate variation, informing future work in post-training and benchmark development.
Jirui Qi, Mingyang Wang, Hinrich Schütze +2
University of Groningen · LMU Munich · University of Amsterdam