Where Are Language-Specific Features Represented in Multilingual LLMs? Everywhere

Latent language identification is often used to argue that multilingual language models route computation through language-specific states, such as English pivots. However, existing probes infer latent language from different signals, such as the geometry of hidden states or what can be decoded from intermediate representations. Since such claims shape conclusions about how models share and route information across languages, we ask whether these probes measure the same phenomenon or expose distinct aspects of multilingual computation. We study this question across model families, training regimes, domains, tasks, checkpoints, and up to 27 languages. We find that identification probes systematically disagree: the GMM-based representation probe, which draws evidence from hidden state geometry, shows earlier cross-lingual mixing, whereas decoding-based probes, which rely on output-space decodability, retain sharper language-specific and more English-biased signals. These differences track model multilinguality and training progression, but are comparatively stable across domains. Our results suggest a more cautious interpretation of latent language identification, where current probes expose different aspects of multilingual processing, rather than directly revealing a single internal lingua franca.

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.

Multilingual LLMs show stereotype-related behavior that varies across languages, but behavioral scores do not show where the relevant information is represented or how it affects the output. To investigate these internal mechanisms, we compare linear probing, attribution patching, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) and feature ablation in Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-2-9B. Probe performance peaks substantially earlier than attribution in all three models, with a separation of 36-53% of model depth. Retained Llama-Scope features often match the social category on which they were selected and form recurring semantic families, but their lexical alignment and ablation effects vary across SAE suites. Only 6-18% of evaluated residual-stream features have language-agnostic effects under our criterion, and none are category-agnostic. Language-agnostic features have larger mean ablation effects in Llama-Scope, but this pattern does not repeat in the other SAE suites. Decodability, output influence, and cross-lingual ablation effects therefore need to be measured separately.