This paper describes our submission to the WMT 2026 Multilingual Instruction Shared Task. We adapt Qwen3-8B with LoRA using organiser-provided data, EuroAlpaca, a multilingual instruction dataset created through task-preserving localisation, and CrossEuroAlpaca, a cross-lingual augmentation that assigns different source and target languages to instructions, contexts and responses. Our system targets open-ended question answering (QA-OEG) in ten shared-task languages represented in the auxiliary data. Under matched decoding, adaptation improves the mean Gemma-4 judge score on target-language QA-OEG by 7.8% relative to the base model. On an additional evaluation using the Aya Evaluation Suite across all shared-task languages, it yields relative gains of 41.5% in macro-averaged ROUGE-L and 2.9% in BERTScore-F1, with larger improvements in target languages. However, these gains are task- and language-specific. Gemma-4 scores improve for QA-OEG and summarisation in the target languages but decline for context-grounded QA there and across all three tasks in the non-target languages.
Figures & tables
Source
Original
Effective
EuroAlpaca
569,360
569,360
CrossEuroAlpaca
569,360
569,360
MIST (cleaned)
21,444
85,776
Total
1,160,164
1,224,496
Table 1: Training data.
Language
Base
Ours
Δ
Language
Base
Ours
Δ
Czech
2.99
3.53
+0.54
Portuguese
4.04
4.28
+0.24
German
3.92
4.04
+0.12
Russian
3.70
4.12
+0.42
English
4.49
4.35
-0.14
Slovak
2.80
3.26
+0.46
Finnish
2.65
2.90
+0.25
Spanish
4.10
4.42
+0.32
Italian
3.96
4.27
+0.31
Turkish
3.31
3.59
+0.28
Mean score
3.60
3.88
+0.28
Acceptance (%)
49.6
62.6
+13.0
Table 2: Gemma-4 results for QA-OEG in the ten target languages. Both systems use greedy decoding with repetition penalty 1.08. Each language has 100 instances. Acceptance is the percentage scoring four or five.
ROUGE-L
BERTScore-F1
Languages
Base
Adapted
Δ [95% CI]
Base
Adapted
Δ [95% CI]
All → 27
13.56
19.20
+5.63 [3.49, 7.81]
84.51
87.00
+2.49 [2.12, 2.85]
Adaptation → 11
16.90
27.89
+10.99 [8.67, 12.73]
85.42
88.86
+3.45 [3.32, 3.59]
Submission → 10
16.68
27.55
+10.88 [8.35, 12.79]
85.37
88.83
+3.46 [3.32, 3.61]
Table 3: Aya Evaluation Suite results, macro-averaged over languages and scaled by 100. Intervals are language-level bootstrap confidence intervals. Adaptation includes French. Submission contains the 10 languages targeted in the shared-task test set. Both models use matched greedy decoding without repetition control.
RP
Target QA-OEG
All tasks
Base
Adapted
Base
Adapted
1.00
3.400
3.510
3.551
2.995
1.02
3.485
3.679
3.587
3.042
1.05
3.533
3.805
3.591
3.108
1.08
3.596
3.876
3.614
3.130
1.10
3.600
3.828
3.604
3.128
Table 4: Repetition-penalty (RP) sensitivity under greedy decoding. Target QA-OEG is macro-averaged over the ten target languages.
Languages
Task
Base
Adapt.
Δ
Target
QA-context
4.178
3.347
-0.831
Target
QA-OEG
3.596
3.876
+0.280
Target
SUM-SUM
3.318
3.509
+0.191
Other
QA-context
3.638
3.038
-0.600
Other
QA-OEG
2.930
2.825
-0.105
Other
SUM-SUM
2.658
2.234
-0.424
Table 5: Gemma-4 scores by task and language coverage at repetition penalty 1.08. Target denotes the ten submission target languages.
Language
Score
Team rank
Czech
61.5
6/7
German
80.3
4/7
English
91.4
2/7
Finnish
47.8
6/7
Italian
83.4
3/7
Portuguese
86.6
2/7
Table 6: Official QA-OEG results on the ten target languages. Team ranks collapse multiple submissions from the same team by retaining the highest score per language.
Multilingual question answering studies how AI systems answer questions across languages using cross-lingual reasoning, retrieval, and culturally grounded knowledge.
Machine translation (MT) offers a scalable way to extend English instruction-tuning data to multiple languages, but it can distort task-critical constraints and required outputs, creating corrupted training examples and degrading models trained on such data. We introduce EuroAlpaca, a task-preserving localisation pipeline and near-parallel resource covering 50 European languages and regional varieties, together with European-IFEval, a multilingual benchmark for verifiable instruction following. Depending on the example, our pipeline applies field-wise MT while preserving task-critical content or reconstructs a task-equivalent target-language instance, followed by validation of cross-field coherence and target-language consistency. Across LoRA experiments with four LLMs, training on directly translated data improves ROUGE-L and F-BERT on the Aya Evaluation Suite, but reduces accuracy on European-IFEval by 29.8% relative to the unadapted baseline. In contrast, adaptation with EuroAlpaca improves accuracy by 12.9% over the same baseline, reversing the degradation caused by direct MT, while also achieving the highest ROUGE-L and F-BERT scores on Aya. These results show that preserving task semantics is essential for multilingual instruction tuning.
Aleix Sant, Jordi Luque, Carlos Escolano
Scientific Research, Telefónica Innovación Digital · Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Barcelona, Spain
We investigate whether commonly available LoRA variants have an advantage over basic LoRA in multilingual instruction tuning. Experiments involving LoRA and four other variants on two datasets across diverse target languages show that there is no significant advantage in using more complex LoRA variants instead of basic LoRA, with respect to balancing cross-lingual transfer and knowledge retention. An analysis of hidden embeddings reveal that layer-wise language representation remains largely similar across LLMs fine-tuned with different LoRA techniques, suggesting that architectural novelty of LoRA techniques may not translate into better cross-lingual adaptation.
Thamali Wijewardhana, Napoleon H. Reyes, Surangika Ranathunga
School of Mathematical and Computational Sciences Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
We describe the PSK submission to the WMT 2026 Multilingual Instruction Shared Task. Our system uses the 3.35B-parameter Tiny Aya Global model with three QLoRA adapters, one for each task. The adapters are trained on multilingual document-summary pairs, passage-based question answering, and filtered standalone question answering. The summarization data also includes scientific papers with their author-written abstracts. On our held-out split, the context and summarization adapters perform better than our multitask adapter, which was trained only on data supplied by the organizers. Results for open QA are mixed and vary with answer length and evaluation method. We therefore submit three systems with the same context and summarization adapters but different open-QA adapters.