The Curse of Multilinguality in Lexical Normalization

Multilinguality is a core capability for modern foundation models, yet training high-quality multilingual models remains challenging due to uneven data availability across languages. A further challenge is the performance interference that can arise from joint multilingual training, commonly referred to as the "curse of multilinguality". We study multilingual data curation across thirteen languages and find that many reported regressions are not inherent to multilingual scaling but instead stem from correctable deficiencies in data quality and composition rather than fundamental capacity limits. In controlled bilingual experiments, improving data quality for any single language benefits others: curating English improves non-English performance in 12 of 13 languages, while curating non-English yields reciprocal improvements in English. Bespoke per-language curation produces substantially larger within-language improvements. Extending these findings to large-scale general-purpose training mixtures, we show that curated multilingual allocations comprising under 8% of total tokens remain remarkably effective. We operationalize this approach within an effort that produced a 20T-token pretraining corpus derived entirely from public sources. Models with 3B and 8B parameters trained on a 1T-token random subset achieve competitive multilingual accuracy with 4-10x fewer training FLOPs than strong public baselines, establishing a new Pareto frontier in multilingual performance versus compute. Moreover, these benefits extend to frontier model scale: the 20T-token corpus served as part of the pretraining dataset for Trinity Large (400B/A13B), which exhibits strong multilingual performance relative to its training FLOPs. These results show that targeted, per-language data curation mitigates multilingual interference and enables compute-efficient multilingual scaling.

Tokenizer choice affects multilingual language modeling, but vocabulary capacity is finite and vocabulary size is often constrained: improving representation for some languages often comes at the expense of others. We therefore ask whether tokenizer choice matters equally across languages, a question that the current literature leave unanswered. To this end, we train 123 language models spanning 54 tokenizers. In the main comparison, architecture, training corpus, training-token budget, and optimization are held fixed, so the models differ only in their tokenizer. We find that tokenizer choice matters more for languages with less language-model training data: across the 54 tokenizers, the standard deviation of a language's bits-per-byte (BPB) increases as its model training-data share decreases (Spearman rho = -0.52 over the 31 trained languages and -0.69 over the 28 written with word boundaries). Leaving a language out of tokenizer training raises its BPB in every language we study, and the penalty tends to be larger for languages with less language-model training data. Giving lower-resource languages a larger share of tokenizer-training data, however, does not unconditionally help those languages: both equal weighting and an allocation inverting the shares with respect to the language model training data increase their BPB, particularly when language-model training repeats data. Finally, which intrinsic tokenizer properties are associated with better BPB differs across languages, providing further evidence that what makes a good tokenizer depends on the language. We find that the metrics quantifying these properties can be successfully used to predict downstream models' pairwise BPB rankings, suggesting a practical strategy for screening tokenizer candidates before training language models.

A central goal of multilingual NLP is to achieve high monolingual performance per language and cross-lingual alignment for large-scale language coverage with a multilingual model. The curse of multilinguality describes the phenomenon of degradation in multilingual model performance as we increase language coverage, posing a threat to the above goal. This paper asks whether multilingual embedding spaces are inherently incapable of achieving perfect multilinguality without a prohibitive increase in required capacity. We first formalize the goal of "perfect multilinguality", embodied in two multilinguality conditions. We then prove that the minimum dimensionality required for perfect multilinguality grows only logarithmically in the number of languages. That is, we show that there is no theoretical curse of multilinguality for embedding space structure. This suggests that the empirical curse of multilinguality is a result of real world data and training conditions. We back this understanding with a small-scale empirical study. Our paper provides the first theoretical and intrinsic perspective on the curse of multilinguality.