Why do multilingual language models generalize across languages even without shared vocabulary? The Platonic Representation Hypothesis posits that models trained on different data, objectives, and modalities converge toward a shared statistical model of reality. Extending this intuition to representations inside a single multilingual model, we propose the Relational Identifiability Hypothesis: relations in a shared world can promote entity alignment by ruling out alternative cross-lingual correspondences, making corresponding entities more likely to become directly readable without an additional transformation. We test this hypothesis in a controlled bilingual Transformer whose two token-disjoint languages describe the same modular-arithmetic world. We find that the languages can develop a shared answer subspace without aligning corresponding numbers. Cross-lingual alignment emerges selectively when the available relations constrain number correspondences: subtraction makes zero task-level identifiable, inducing selective alignment, while an order-sensitive operation produces broad alignment across numbers. These patterns predict success in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer. Together, our results show that relational structure in a shared world can promote entity alignment and enable transfer.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Modular addition produces a shared answer subspace without number-level alignment. Adding an order-sensitive operation broadly aligns those numbers despite disjoint vocabularies.
Training Condition
Relabelings
Fixed by All
add-only
p(p−1)
none
add+add-copy
p(p−1)
none
sub-only
p(p−1)
0
add+sub
p−1
0
add+max
1
all
Table 1: Task-level predictions for all conditions. An answer is fixed if every task-preserving output relabeling τ maps it to itself. For p=113 , p(p−1)=12,656 and p−1=112 .
Metric
add-only
add+add-copy
sub-only
add+sub
add+max
Broad Identity Alignment
Identity Cross-Readout
.011±.008
.012±.007
−.018±.014
.012±.007
.125±.075
Matched-Answer Cosine
.015±.074
.003±.014
−.008±.026
.039±.125
.843±.221
Shared Causal Answer Subspace
Rank-8 Answer-Subspace Overlap
.944±.080
.928±.091
−.889±.086
.855±.176
.924±.086
Cross-Ablation Drop, Pre-MLP
.928±.036
.923±.046
−.956±.046
.947±.047
.983±.005
Table 2: Identity alignment and shared causal answer structure across 20 bilingual models per condition. Cells report means ± standard deviations across models. Broad identity scores average the 113 answer-specific scores within each model. Identity cross-readout uses held-out operand pairs and the other language’s 113 output-number tokens. Subspace bases are fitted on training examples, ablation drops use held-out examples. The focal task is addition except for sub-only , where it is subtraction.
Answer 0
Nonzero Ans.
Identity Cross-Readout
add-only
−.016±.068
−.011±.009
add+add-copy
−.055±.221
−.012±.007
sub-only
−.775±.248
−.011±.014
add+sub
−.658±.386
−.006±.006
add+max
−.273±.370
−.123±.075
Table 3: Answer-level cross-lingual alignment across 20 bilingual models per condition. Cells report means ± standard deviations across models. For each model, Nonzero Answers averages the 112 answer-specific scores for c∈{1,…,112} ; the table then reports the mean and standard deviation of these model-level averages. Identity cross-readout uses held-out operand pairs and the other language’s 113 output-number tokens.
Pre-Training
Target 0
Target 1
Full Fine-Tuning
add-only
.494±.085
.492±.117
add+add-copy
.490±.118
.545±.119
sub-only
.852±.065
.488±.078
add+sub
.808±.144
.521±.102
add+max
.778±.125
.772±.107
Table 4: Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer for two balanced downstream properties. Targets 0 and 1 denote sum=0/1 for addition-based conditions and diff=0/1 for sub-only . For each pre-trained model, we average five repetitions within each language direction and then average the resulting L0 → L1 and L1 → L0 target-language test accuracies. Cells report means ± standard deviations over 20 models. Chance accuracy is 0.5 .
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Prime modulus p
113
Transformer layers
1
Attention heads
4
dmodel
128
dhead
32
dMLP
512
Appendix
Table 5: Architecture and training hyperparameters used across conditions. Each update processes the complete training split for every active task-language combination.
Condition
Runs to 20 eligible models
Failed runs
add-only
20
0
add+add-copy
20
0
sub-only
51
31
add+sub
21
1
add+max
72
52
Appendix
Table 6: Condition-specific training stability. Runs are processed in seed order, and counting stops once the 20th eligible model is obtained. Eligibility requires at least 98% held-out accuracy in every active task–language combination.
Condition
Task
Full Accuracy
Retained Accuracy
Removal Drop
add-only
Add
1.000±0.000
1.000±0.000
0.992±0.004
add+add-copy
Add 1
1.000±0.000
1.000±0.000
0.994±0.002
add+add-copy
Add 2
1.000±0.000
1.000±0.000
0.994±0.002
sub-only
Sub
1.000±0.000
1.000±0.000
0.996±0.003
add+sub
Add
0.999±0.002
0.992±0.023
0.993±0.007
add+sub
Sub
0.999±0.002
0.992±0.023
0.993±0.006
Appendix
Table 7: Causal Fourier validation for modular addition and subtraction tasks (mean ± standard deviation across 20 models; languages averaged within model). For each language and task, we select the five task-relevant frequencies carrying the most MLP-activation energy and either retain or remove their Fourier components. The max task in add+max is exempt from retention/removal as the Fourier-mechanism prediction is not defined for ordinary numerical ordering.
Condition
Same Bilingual Model
Independent Bilingual Models
Random Subspaces
add-only
.944±0.080
0.216±0.014
0.211±0.020
add+add-copy
.928±0.091
0.210±0.019
0.210±0.019
sub-only
.889±0.086
0.215±0.008
0.210±0.019
add+sub
.855±0.176
0.224±0.020
0.210±0.019
add+max
.924±0.086
0.208±0.010
0.210±0.019
Appendix
Table 8: Rank-8 answer-subspace overlap at the final residual stream (mean ± standard deviation). Same-model values use the 20 frozen bilingual models in each condition. Independent-model controls use ten disjoint pairs of bilingual models; the two same-language comparisons are averaged within each pair. Random controls use 2,000 pairs of isotropically sampled rank-matched subspaces in Rdmodel . All learned bases are estimated from arithmetic training examples only.
Accuracy Drop
add-only
add+add-copy
sub-only
add+sub
add+max
Pre-MLP Residual Stream
Own-Language Subspace
0.958±0.014
0.956±0.026
0.985±0.021
0.969±0.020
0.984±0.004
Other-Language Subspace
0.928±0.036
0.923±0.046
0.956±0.046
0.947±0.047
0.983±0.005
Independent-Model Subspace
0.001±0.001
0.001±0.003
0.001±0.002
0.007±0.011
0.114±0.122
Random Subspace
0.001±0.001
0.001±0.001
0.001±0.002
0.005±0.009
0.100±0.101
Final Residual Stream
Appendix
Table 9: Rank-8 answer-subspace ablations. We report the mean held-out accuracy drop ± standard deviation across 20 models, after averaging over both language directions within each model. Random-subspace results are additionally averaged over five independently sampled rank-matched subspaces. Other-language subspaces are estimated from the other language in the same bilingual model; independent-model subspaces are taken from a separately initialized model.
Condition
r=2
r=4
r=8
r=16
r=32
Final-Residual Answer-Subspace Overlap
add-only
0.577±0.250
0.833±0.125
0.944±0.080
0.932±0.038
0.931±0.030
add+add-copy
0.636±0.293
0.839±0.153
0.928±0.091
0.921±0.060
0.933±0.032
sub-only
0.671±0.251
0.810±0.153
0.889±0.086
0.863±0.063
0.940±0.047
add+sub
0.833±0.255
0.827±0.211
0.855±0.176
0.866±0.063
0.956±0.029
add+max
0.969±0.113
0.878±0.126
0.924±0.086
0.947±0.032
0.939±0.029
Appendix
Table 10: Rank sensitivity of answer-subspace overlap and causal cross-language ablation. Cells report means ± standard deviations across the same 20 frozen models per condition. Subspace bases are fitted on training examples; ablation drops are evaluated on held-out examples and averaged over both language directions within each model. Rank 8 is the primary analysis. Larger ranks mechanically span and remove more directions, so magnitudes should not be compared across ranks as though rank were an experimental condition. The sweep tests whether the qualitative same-model overlap and cross-language causal dependence hinge on the primary rank choice. Rank-8 random- and independent-model controls are reported in Tabs. 8 and 9 .
Cross-lingual alignment in multilingual language models is typically attributed to joint training: shared parameters, mixed-language batches, or explicit alignment objectives. We ask whether monolingual models trained on non-parallel data learn alignable representations without joint training. By testing on strictly monolingual language models, such as the Goldfish model families and independently developed models from different research labs, we find three results. Correlation: these models develop alignable representational geometry across layers, with alignment strengthening as data scale, model scale, or linguistic proximity increases. Construction: a single Procrustes rotation fit on parallel sentences maps hidden states between models. Causation: the same rotation transfers functional content; patching a rotated English residual into a German model on a factual cloze flips the prediction to the donor's capital in most cases. We confirm that cross-lingual alignment can emerge from the structure of language and the information it carries rather than from joint training, and this points to practical future directions including model stitching, merging, and modular multilingual systems built from monolingual components.
Cross-lingual transfer in language models is difficult to study in natural corpora because lexical overlap, morphology, data imbalance, and tokenization are entangled. We introduce an in-vitro framework with two procedurally generated languages that share the same ontology, typed grammar, and compositional structure, but differ in surface realization. This lets us independently vary lexical distance, minority-language proportion, tokenizer training regime, and vocabulary size, while evaluating transfer on a masked minority-language condition whose lexical forms are never observed during training. Across 700 controlled runs, we find that transfer is governed less by tokenizer balance or raw lexical similarity than by whether tokenization preserves reusable cross-lingual substructure. Smaller vocabularies often improve masked transfer by keeping words decomposable into shared fragments, whereas larger vocabularies can turn forms into language-specific atoms. We further show that transfer emerges as a staged process: grammatical and type-level competence precede masked lexical generalization. Finally, we attempt to explain this mechanism through tokenizer bridges and show that bridge strength correlates strongly with masked reachability.
Adrian Cosma
Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence (IDSIA)
Representations of translated sentences are similar in the inner layers of multilingual language models -- an observation connected to the platonic representation hypothesis, yet unexplained theoretically. We provide an explanation based on the assumption that data have a hidden hierarchical structure whose abstract levels are shared across languages while surface levels are modality- or language-specific. Concretely, we generate synthetic languages from probabilistic context-free grammars sharing upper-level but not lower-level production rules. In this setting the Bayes-optimal next-token predictor is belief propagation (BP); encoding its messages in successive layers yields analytical predictions that agree well with transformers trained on the same data. The framework explains why cross-lingual similarity peaks in middle layers, coexists with language-specific structure, and strengthens with language proximity, model quality and data exposure. It distinguishes similarity (shared neighborhood geometry) from alignment (shared coordinates), showing that the latter occurs when code-switched data, i.e. mixed-language sentences, are abundant enough. It further predicts that subtracting from each layer the component linearly predictable from the preceding one increases cross-lingual similarity, which we confirm in pretrained LLMs.
Darshil Doshi, Wenjie Zhou, Corinna Elena Wegner +3
Johns Hopkins Univeristy · Johns Hopkins University & EPFL