Pixel language models process text as rendered images instead of a finite vocabulary, which gives them strong cross-lingual transfer abilities. However, not much is known about how these abilities are influenced by larger-scale pretraining. In this paper, we train a family of MPIXEL models along three axes of variation: more languages, more scripts, and larger model capacity under fixed per-language compute. In evaluations on five tasks covering 83 languages, we find that scaling acts locally: each axis improves the added languages and scripts, while increased capacity mitigates the curse of multilinguality from pretraining on more languages. Transfer to unseen scripts improves with multilingual pretraining, but does not further improve with scaling. On typologically distant low-resource languages, our models outperform subword and character-level baselines across many writing systems. We also show that larger pixel models reserve more layers for visual processing, and that cross-lingual alignment weakens as more languages are added. Overall, our findings characterize how multilingual scaling improves pixel language models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: mpixel performance when scaling the number of pretraining languages and model capacity. Adding new languages steadily improves performance on seen scripts, albeit with a slight decrease on shared languages. Higher capacity improves performance on shared and seen scripts. On unseen scripts, neither additional languages nor capacity yields consistent gains.
θ
L
Patches
Words
mpixel
86M
16
120B
38B
mpixel large
307M
16
120B
38B
mpixel 4s
86M
4
30B
10B
mpixel 8l
86M
8
60B
19B
mpixel 8s
86M
8
60B
19B
Table 1: Overview of the trained models. The mpixel and mpixel large models as the main outcomes of this paper, while the 4s , 8l and 8s models are used in our control experiments. θ : number of parameters. L: number of pretraining languages. Patches: number of unique image patches seen during pretraining. Words: approximate number of white-space delimited words.
Model
∣θ∣
#L
∣X∣
SIB-200 (77)
NER (12)
UDP (30)
XNLI (15)
GLUE (1)
Avg
canine-s
127M
104
1.0T
55.8
70.8
69.7
70.5
73.0
68.0
mbert
179M
104
-
63.0
81.6
80.0
74.7
79.6
75.8
xlm-r
270M
100
6.3T
65.4
83.1
82.7
79.1
80.8
78.2
pixel †
86M
1
0.1T
52.9
73.6
75.7
67.1
78.7
69.6
mpixel
86M
16
0.5T
61.9
77.3
80.3
69.5
73.3
72.5
mpixel
307M
16
0.5T
64.4
80.9
80.7
75.0
79.6
76.1
Table 2: Performance of mpixel compared to subword vocabulary and character-level models. Each cell is the average over all evaluation languages of the best three runs per language, selected by validation performance. We report F1 for SIB-200 and NER, LAS for UDP, accuracy for XNLI and the average score for GLUE, over ( ⋅ ) languages. ∣θ∣ : model size. #L: number of pretraining languages. ∣X∣ : pretraining size in characters for canine-s , subwords for xlm-r , and image patches for the mpixel models. Best results are in bold , second best underlined .
Figure 2: Performance of models on typologically distant low-resource languages in the SIB-200 benchmark.
Figure 3: Downstream performance vs. number of pretraining languages (86M models; x=1 is English-only). Lines are evaluation tiers fixed w.r.t. mpixel ’s languages and scripts; each point is a mean over that tier’s items ( n per panel, in legend order). At x=8 the point is the mean of mpixel 8l and mpixel 8s and the bar spans them.
Figure 4: Performances of the mpixel variants on the downstream benchmarks considering only four pretraining languages shared across models.
Figure 5: ABX probing performances of mpixel variants on the four shared pretraining languages.
Figure 6: Layer-wise probing accuracy on sentence-level linguistic tasks. The accuracy is plotted against the proportional encoder layer depth for both base and large model variants.
Figure 7: Layer-wise probing accuracy on linspector word-level tasks. Rows show tasks, columns show languages; each subplot plots accuracy against encoder layer.
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Language
Script
Pivot
Distance
arb
Latin
hau
0.714
ayr
Latin
swh
0.725
bam
Latin
jav
0.609
cjk
Latin
swh
0.555
dyu
Latin
zsm
0.623
fij
Latin
sun
0.603
Appendix
Table 3: Language–script pairs selected as typologically distant (DistaLs average of typology-related distances, T=0.50 ). The nearest same-script pretraining pivot and distance are shown.
ISO
Language
Script
Language Family
Branch
# Docs (M)
# Words (B)
# Chars (B)
ben
Bengali
Bengali
Indo-European
Indo-Aryan
6.9
2.5
13.9
dan
Danish
Latin
Indo-European
Germanic
16.7
2.3
12.2
eng
English
Latin
Indo-European
Germanic
17.0
2.5
12.2
fin
Finnish
Latin
Uralic
Finnic
16.4
1.8
13.0
heb
Hebrew
Hebrew
Afro-Asiatic
Semitic
17.0
2.5
11.7
hin
Hindi
Devanagari
Indo-European
Indo-Aryan
18.6
3.7
15.0
Appendix
Table 4: Per-language statistics of the pretraining corpus: script, language family and branch, and corpus size in documents (M, millions), whitespace-delimited words (B, billions) and characters (B). Word counts are omitted for languages without whitespace word boundaries (Chinese, Thai).
Language
Treebank
#Sentences
License
eng
English-EWT
16621
CC BY-SA 4.0
ara
Arabic-PADT
7664
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
hye
Armenian-BSUT
2523
CC BY-SA 4.0
bul
Bulgarian-BTB
11138
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
cop
Coptic-Scriptorium
2011
CC BY 4.0
dan
Danish-DDT
5512
CC BY-SA 4.0
Appendix
Table 5: Total number of sentences of Universal Dependencies v2.18 ( Zeman et al., 2026 ; Nivre et al., 2020 ) treebanks used for dependency parsing task evaluations, including dataset licenses. Adapted from Rust et al. (2023) ; Kesen et al. (2025) .
Language
Train
Validation
Test
Source
License
ben
961679
4859
607
Naamapadam
CC0 1.0
dan
4383
564
565
Universal NER (UNER_Danish-DDT)
CC BY-SA 4.0
ell
1662
403
456
Universal NER (UNER_Greek_GDT)
CC-BY-SA-4.0
eng
12543
2001
2077
Universal NER (UNER_English-EWT)
CC BY-SA 4.0
heb
5241
484
491
Universal NER (UNER_Hebrew-HTB)
CC BY-SA 4.0
hin
985787
13460
867
Naamapadam
CC0 1.0
Appendix
Table 6: Data distribution and license information for the NER datasets used within this work. See Universal NER ( Mayhew et al., 2024 ; Blevins et al., 2026 ) , Naamapadam ( Mhaske et al., 2023 ) , NER-UK ( Chaplynskyi and Romanyshyn, 2024 ) and KLUE ( Park et al., 2021 ) for more detailed statistics.
Parameter
Value
Image size
(16, 8192, 3)
Patch size P
16
Layer norm ε ( Ba et al., 2016 )
1\times10−12
Span masking ratio R
0.25
Span masking max length S
6
Span masking cumulative weights W
{0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9,1}
Appendix
Table 7: Pretraining hyperparameters shared by all mpixel models and pixel † .
Parameter
Base Models
mpixel large
Encoder hidden size Denc
768
1024
Encoder intermediate size
3072
4096
Encoder num attention heads
12
16
Encoder num layers L
12
24
Decoder hidden size Ddec
512
512
Decoder intermediate size
2048
2048
Appendix
Table 8: Pretraining hyperparameters that differ between base-scale models with 86M parameters and the large mpixel model with 307M parameters.
Parameter
SIB-200
UDP
NER
XNLI
GLUE
Classification head pooling
Mean
—
—
CLS
Mean
Optimizer
AdamW
Adam β
0.9, 0.999
Adam ϵ
1e − 8
Weight decay
0
Learning rate schedule
Linear decay
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameters used for fine-tuning and evaluating models on SIB-200, UDP, NER, XNLI and GLUE.
Language
Script
canine-s
mbert
xlm-r
pixel †
mpixel 4s
mpixel 8l
mpixel 8s
mpixel
mpixel
127M
179M
270M
86M
86M
86M
86M
86M
307M
Pretraining Languages
arb
Arab
69.2 ± 4.0
84.1 ± 2.3
88.2 ± 0.7
42.7 ± 3.2
48.2 ± 1.6
47.6 ± 4.5
73.8 ± 3.1
75.3 ± 2.6
77.5 ± 1.9
ben
Beng
54.5
78.5 ± 1.6
83.1 ± 1.2
48.6 ± 0.4
58.4 ± 1.9
55.7 ± 1.2
58.0 ± 3.1
78.2 ± 2.3
79.2 ± 1.2
dan
Latn
72.7 ± 1.8
83.4 ± 0.6
88.0 ± 0.7
67.3 ± 0.6
60.8 ± 1.4
81.4 ± 2.0
61.9 ± 1.4
82.7 ± 0.8
84.1 ± 0.6
ell
Grek
65.3
74.0 ± 1.8
85.4 ± 1.3
42.0 ± 1.3
49.6 ± 0.3
50.0 ± 1.5
84.3 ± 1.7
82.3 ± 1.8
81.5 ± 1.2
Appendix
Table 10: SIB-200 per-language test F1. Scores are averaged over the 3 runs with the best validation F1. canine-s scores given without a standard deviation are imported from Kesen et al. (2025) . xlm-r results are taken from Adelani et al. (2024) .
canine-s
mbert
xlm-r
pixel †
mpixel 4s
mpixel 8l
mpixel 8s
mpixel
mpixel
127M
179M
270M
86M
86M
86M
86M
86M
307M
Pretraining Languages
eng
67.1
81.5 ± 1.1
83.2 ± 0.7
81.1 ± 0.8
78.9 ± 0.2
77.0 ± 0.5
75.5 ± 0.8
74.9 ± 1.8
80.9 ± 0.7
dan
70.5 ± 0.4
86.5 ± 0.2
86.6 ± 0.6
76.3 ± 1.1
74.1 ± 0.3
80.7 ± 1.6
74.3 ± 0.1
78.4 ± 2.1
85.8 ± 0.2
ell
56.1 ± 1.5
78.8 ± 0.4
81.1 ± 0.6
60.9 ± 0.8
62.5 ± 0.8
62.9 ± 1.4
75.5 ± 1.0
70.0 ± 0.5
79.8 ± 0.2
heb
42.0 ± 1.5
73.4 ± 0.7
78.4 ± 0.7
57.1 ± 1.0
59.5 ± 1.7
58.0 ± 1.0
58.3 ± 1.4
68.2 ± 1.0
72.9 ± 0.6
Appendix
Table 11: NER per-language test F1. Validation split F1 is reported for kor , as it does not include a test set. Scores are averaged over the 3 runs with the best validation F1. CANINE-S scores given without a standard deviation are imported from Kesen et al. (2025) .
Model
θ
#L
arb
bul
deu
ell
eng
spa
fra
hin
rus
swa
tha
tur
urd
vie
zho
Avg
canine-s
127M
104
69.7
75.0
74.9
72.5
79.1
76.3
75.3
65.2
73.0
65.0
62.3
68.9
64.1
71.3
65.6
70.5
mbert
179M
104
73.2
77.7
77.5
75.7
83.5
79.8
78.6
70.1
76.4
68.1
67.2
73.8
64.4
76.5
77.9
74.7
xlm-r
270M
100
77.3
81.3
80.3
80.4
85.4
82.2
81.4
76.1
79.7
73.1
77.9
78.6
73.0
79.7
80.2
79.1
pixel †
86M
1
60.3 ± 0.4
69.4 ± 0.3
72.4 ± 0.1
69.2 ± 0.4
83.0 ± 0.4
74.6 ± 0.6
75.0 ± 0.4
61.6 ± 0.2
66.5 ± 0.4
63.0 ± 0.3
51.5 ± 0.3
66.2 ± 0.4
57.1 ± 0.2
69.4 ± 0.3
67.1 ± 0.5
67.1
mpixel 4s
86M
4
61.3 ± 0.4
74.8 ± 0.3
71.8 ± 0.5
71.4 ± 0.1
79.8 ± 0.2
74.2 ± 0.2
73.7 ± 0.2
70.6 ± 0.4
73.0 ± 0.1
63.0 ± 0.7
54.4 ± 0.6
66.5 ± 0.1
58.3 ± 0.4
69.9 ± 0.1
75.9 ± 0.0
69.2
mpixel 8l
86M
8
58.4 ± 0.3
72.9 ± 0.2
71.5 ± 0.1
67.9 ± 0.2
79.7 ± 0.3
77.5 ± 0.2
73.2 ± 0.2
69.8 ± 0.1
71.7 ± 0.4
60.9 ± 0.3
51.3 ± 0.5
74.3 ± 0.1
55.9 ± 0.0
67.5 ± 0.2
74.6 ± 0.1
68.5
Appendix
Table 12: XNLI per-language test accuracy. Scores are averaged over the 3 runs with the best validation accuracy. xlm-r scores are imported from Conneau et al. (2020) , and canine-s and mbert scores from Sun et al. (2023) .
Model
θ
#L
MNLI-M/MM
QQP
QNLI
SST-2
CoLA
STS-B
MRPC
RTE
WNLI
Avg
393k
364k
105k
67k
8.6k
5.8k
3.7k
2.5k
635
canine-s
127M
104
77.3 ± 0.1 / 78.0 ± 0.1
85.3 ± 0.2
88.8 ± 0.2
88.0 ± 0.0
17.4 ± 0.6
85.1 ± 0.0
88.3 ± 0.3
65.0 ± 0.6
56.8 ± 0.7
73.0
mbert
179M
104
82.3 ± 0.1 / 82.8 ± 0.1
87.3 ± 0.0
91.1 ± 0.2
91.1 ± 0.2
46.1 ± 1.1
89.2 ± 0.0
90.8 ± 0.1
76.7 ± 0.9
58.7 ± 1.8
79.6
xlm-r
270M
100
84.7 ± 0.1 / 84.7 ± 0.1
88.0 ± 0.1
90.6 ± 0.0
93.1 ± 0.1
60.3 ± 0.2
88.8 ± 0.1
92.0 ± 0.1
69.0 ± 0.3
56.3 ± 0.0
80.8
pixel †
86M
1
83.2 ± 0.1 / 83.6 ± 0.3
87.5 ± 0.2
89.6 ± 0.1
91.9 ± 0.1
49.4 ± 0.4
88.5 ± 0.0
91.4 ± 0.2
65.6 ± 0.5
56.8 ± 1.3
78.7
mpixel 4s
86M
4
80.5 ± 0.2 / 80.7 ± 0.1
87.4 ± 0.1
88.2 ± 0.1
90.0 ± 0.2
37.5 ± 0.3
86.2 ± 0.3
90.1 ± 0.4
63.4 ± 0.9
57.8 ± 1.1
76.2
Appendix
Table 13: GLUE test results. Scores are averaged over the 3 runs with the best validation score.
Language
Script
canine-s
mbert
xlm-r
pixel †
mpixel 4s
mpixel 8l
mpixel 8s
mpixel
mpixel
∣θ∣
127M
179M
270M
86M
86M
86M
86M
86M
307M
Pretraining Languages
arb
Arab
77.5
85.5 ± 0.1
86.6 ± 0.1
80.0 ± 0.0
79.4 ± 0.1
79.8 ± 0.0
82.8 ± 0.2
82.2 ± 0.1
83.2 ± 0.3
zho
Hant
75.1
85.4 ± 0.1
86.5 ± 0.3
71.2 ± 0.2
83.0 ± 0.4
82.6 ± 0.5
82.4 ± 0.2
81.6 ± 0.3
85.0 ± 0.2
dan
Latn
68.0 ± 0.7
87.5 ± 0.1
89.8 ± 0.4
80.3 ± 0.1
80.2 ± 0.3
86.6 ± 0.1
80.3 ± 0.2
85.7 ± 0.3
88.2 ± 0.1
eng
Latn
82.4
91.8 ± 0.2
93.2 ± 0.1
92.5 ± 0.1
89.3 ± 0.2
89.2 ± 0.1
88.7 ± 0.1
88.7 ± 0.2
90.5 ± 0.1
Appendix
Table 14: UDP per-language test LAS. Scores are averaged over the 3 runs with the best validation LAS. canine-s scores given without a standard deviation are imported from Kesen et al. (2025) .
Figure 8: ABX probes, mpixel base (above) and mpixel large (below). Languages seen and unseen during pre-training, in different combinations.
Figure 9: ABX probes, mpixel base (above) and mpixel large (below), mpixel base pre-training languages. Pairs of languages that share script (blue) versus pairs of languages that have different scripts (orange).
Figure 10: Layer-wise accuracy of linear script-identification probes trained on the representations of each base model. Left (iid): unseen sentences from the 16 training languages. Right (ood): 32 unseen languages whose scripts were seen during training.
Figure 11: linspector probing results for the Case task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 12: linspector probing results for the Gender task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 13: linspector probing results for the Mood task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 14: linspector probing results for the Number task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 15: linspector probing results for the OddFeat task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 16: linspector probing results for the POS task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 17: linspector probing results for the Person task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 18: linspector probing results for the Possession task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 19: linspector probing results for the Pseudo task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 20: linspector probing results for the SameFeat task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 21: linspector probing results for the TagCount task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 22: linspector probing results for the Tense task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 23: linspector probing results for the Voice task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 24: linspector probing results for the Comparison task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Figure 25: linspector probing results for the Polarity task. Each panel shows linear probe accuracy per layer, with the x-axis giving the layer position relative to the model depth.
Pixel-based language models (LMs) replace traditional tokenizers by processing rendered images of text, making cross-lingual transfer heavily dependent on the visual and structural properties of writing systems. However, the dynamics of adapting these models to low-resource languages with complex morphology and written in unique scripts are not yet explored. Using Tibetan as a case study, we analyze how continued pre-training of pixel-based LMs is influenced by data scale, initial script exposure, and cross-lingual transfer from languages written in other Brahmic scripts. We introduce four rendering-level metrics to quantify visual script similarity. We evaluate downstream performance across three tasks. Our results show that higher orthographic proximity enhances semantic transfer, even under severe data constraints. Additionally, we find a performance asymmetry based on the pre-training starting point: while multilingual pre-training PIXEL-M4 has stronger initial performance, its capacity for subsequent adaptation seems to be constrained, whereas adapting a monolingual model PIXEL with mixed scripts yields more gains on sentence-level tasks. Our metrics and case study offer empirical observations that could help inform data selection and script adaptation choices when working with pixel-based models in similar low-resource settings.
Ran Zhang, Miryam de Lhoneux, Wessel Poelman
LAGOM·NLP, Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven
Pixel-based language models are gaining momentum as alternatives to traditional token-based approaches, promising to circumvent tokenization challenges; however, existing models remain English-centric and are hard to train as generators. This paper introduces MIXAR, the first generative multilingual pixel-based language model, pretrained on eight high-resource languages spanning Latin and CJK scripts and scaled up to 0.5B parameters. Although pretrained on high-resource languages only, MIXAR generalizes to unseen low-resource languages better than a tokenizer-based model pretrained on the same corpus, with its largest gains on the scripts most distant from the pretraining mix, taking a step toward more equitable language technology. To make free generation work in pixel space, MIXAR replaces the notoriously unstable adversarial training stage of prior pixel-based models with a GRPO-based reinforcement-learning stage that rewards the model on its own free-running generations: it proves more stable and multiplies free-generation accuracy by up to 2.3x on multilingual benchmarks. Finally, MIXAR performs on par with comparable tokenizer-based models on discriminative benchmarks, improves consistently with scale, and withstands orthographic attacks more gracefully than tokenizer-based models. Code and models are available at https://github.com/april-tools/mixar.
Pixel-based language models process rendered text without relying on a fixed subword vocabulary, offering a promising approach to noisy and multilingual inputs. However, their practical value depends on whether they can be reliably adapted to downstream tasks. To this end, we systematically examine this question through fine-tuning behavior, typographical robustness, and zero-shot crosslingual transfer. Under our tested settings, pixel-based models require longer training and broader labelled-data coverage than text-based models, while delayed learning and learning-rate-dependent failures make adaptation less reliable. Our analyses further suggest that task-relevant information is less readily accessible in pretrained pixel representations, placing greater demands on fine-tuning. Once successfully adapted, however, pixel-based models lose substantially less accuracy under typographical noise and achieve higher target-language accuracy than English-pretrained text-based counterparts on two crosslingual benchmarks, despite weaker clean English performance. Together, these findings reveal a central trade-off: replacing tokenization with rendering reduces sensitivity to corrupted and unfamiliar inputs, but shifts a central bottleneck to downstream adaptation.
Haowen Tang, Wei Xia, Raoyuan Zhao +2
Center for Information and Language Processing, LMU Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML)