Cross-Lingual Consistency

Lexical gaps are words that do not exist in certain languages. They pose challenges for building multilingual lexical resources, for machine translation, and for cross-lingual transfer. Existing lexical gap detection relies on human judgments or fixed conceptual taxonomies. We propose a data-driven framework for identifying cross-lingual lexical gaps. We extracted contextualized embeddings from Korean-English bilingual LLMs for Korean-to-English and English-to-Korean translation pairs. Combinations of LLMs, embedding types, dimensionality, and orthogonal transformations across 100 train-test splits yielded 4000 distinct embedding spaces in each source language. In each space, we computed the semantic similarity between each source word and its nearest neighbor in the target language, and compared their distribution for gap words versus non-gap words. In 94% (Korean-to-English) and 97% (English-to-Korean) of embedding spaces, gap words showed weaker cross-lingual semantic alignment than non-gap words. Logistic classifiers trained on unaligned embedding spaces can reliably separate gap words from non-gap words, achieving AUCs of 0.81 (Korean-to-English) and 0.76 (English-to-Korean) and retrieving 18/19 Korean and 26/27 English gap words. This approach provides a language-agnostic and taxonomy-free method for scalable lexical gap identification.

Brain-LLM alignment is well established in English, yet the brain's language network is neuroanatomically universal across languages. Does alignment also generalize cross-linguistically, and what governs the variation? We test this using fMRI data from 112 participants across English, Chinese, and French (the Le Petit Prince corpus) and seven LLMs spanning English-dominant, Chinese-dominant, and multilingual architectures. Our central finding is that training-language dominance, not an inherent property of English, drives the alignment pattern: a Chinese-dominant model (Baichuan2-7B), architecture-matched to LLaMA-2-7B, reverses the gradient entirely, aligning best with Chinese brains and worst with English. Beyond training dominance, formal typological distance independently covaries with alignment degradation, syntax-associated brain regions (IFG) show $2.3\times$ steeper typological gradients than lexico-semantic regions (PTL), and tokenization fertility accounts for $\sim$60% of a cross-linguistic shift in optimal encoding layer. These results reveal that the apparent "English advantage" in brain-LLM alignment is an artifact of training data composition, while the remaining variation reflects genuine typological structure concentrated in syntactic processing.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities across various tasks, they exhibit significant performance discrepancies across languages. While prompting LLMs in English typically yields the highest general performance, it often induces a Western-centric bias, hindering the model's ability to accurately reflect diverse cultural knowledge. We hypothesize that LLMs already possess rich cultural knowledge embedded within local-language representations, but fail to retrieve it when prompted in English. To bridge this cross-lingual knowledge gap, we propose a novel self-supervised framework. Our method leverages multilingual self-consistency to identify the most reliable cultural responses across languages, combined with a self-critique mechanism to transfer this knowledge to the weaker language. Evaluations on the BLEnD benchmark demonstrate that our approach significantly improves cultural alignment-boosting performance on English queries by an average of 5.03%-relying entirely on self-generated data. Ultimately, our work demonstrates that latent cultural knowledge can be successfully surfaced and propagated across languages, enabling more culturally equitable and consistent LLMs.

Agreement attraction errors, in which a verb erroneously agrees with an intervening noun rather than its grammatical head, are amplified by morphological syncretism in some languages (English, German, Russian) but not others (Turkish, Armenian), a cross-linguistic pattern without a principled account. We use surprisal and attention entropy from large language models as processing proxies to investigate this variation across four languages. LLM-derived measures replicate behavioral findings in English and German (syncretism modulates attraction), align with Turkish null results (no modulation), and partially capture Russian patterns. We discuss further directions for better understanding why syncretism affects agreement attraction differently across languages.

LLMs deployed multilingually are often audited via English explanations for non-English inputs. We evaluate extractive explanations ''where the model identifies input token spans as evidence alongside a generated rationale'' and uncover a systematic trade-off: English-pivot explanations can achieve higher span agreement with human rationales while their evidence becomes less causally grounded in the model's prediction, as measured by both comprehensiveness and sufficiency. Across 3 tasks, 5languages, and 2multilingual LLM families, we find that English explanations frequently produce fluent but loosely anchored rationales, with comprehensiveness degrading by up to 5.7x relative to native-language conditions - even as task accuracy remains stable across settings. For socially nuanced classification, English pivots also fail to preserve pragmatic cues, reducing both faithfulness and span agreement. We recommend auditing explanations in the input language, reporting multi-faceted faithfulness metrics beyond lexical overlap, and treating English rationales as communication summaries rather than faithful decision traces.

Current clinical artificial intelligence (AI) systems are evaluated almost exclusively on clean, standardised, English-language inputs, conditions that do not reflect the realities of healthcare delivery in low-resource settings. This study presents the first systematic dual audit of two orthogonal safety vulnerabilities in clinical AI: adversarial image fragility and cross-lingual diagnostic drift. Using DenseNet121, the architecture underlying CheXNet, fine-tuned on the COVID-QU-Ex chest X-ray dataset (85,318 images; COVID-19, Non-COVID Pneumonia, Normal), we demonstrate that diagnostic accuracy collapses from 89.3% to 62.0% under a Fast Gradient Method (FGM) perturbation of epsilon=0.021, a magnitude imperceptible to the human eye. Standard defensive strategies including Gaussian smoothing and ensemble voting failed to restore clinical safety. In a parallel language fragility experiment, we tested Llama3.1:8b and NatLAS (N-ATLAS) on 20 COVID-19 clinical cases presented in Standard English, Nigerian Pidgin (Naija), and Yoruba-inflected English. Both models exhibited significant accuracy degradation: Llama3.1:8b dropped from 80.0% to 65.0% on Pidgin; NatLAS, an African-context model, collapsed from 85.0% to 55.0%, with diagnosis consistency falling to 50%. These findings establish a quantitative failure envelope for clinical AI under conditions representative of Primary Health Centre (PHC) deployment in Nigeria, and motivate urgent calls for adversarially hardened, linguistically inclusive clinical AI architectures.

What makes a word difficult to learn, and how does the difficulty depend on the learner's native language? We computationally model vocabulary difficulty for English learners whose first language is Spanish, German, or Chinese with gradient-boosted models trained on features related to a word's familiarity (e.g., frequency), meaning, surface form, and cross-linguistic transfer. Using Shapley values, we determine the importance of each feature group. Word familiarity is the dominant feature group shared by all three languages. However, predictions for Spanish- and German-speaking learners rely additionally on orthographic transfer. This transfer mechanism is unavailable to Chinese learners, whose difficulty is shaped by a combination of familiarity and surface features alone. Our models provide interpretable, L1-tailored difficulty estimates that can be used to design vocabulary curricula.

Multilingual vision-language models exhibit systematic performance gaps across languages, but the mechanism remains ambiguous: cross-language divergence could arise from the visual encoder, the text branch, or their interaction. We resolve this ambiguity through a dense multilingual CLIP probe in which the visual encoder is held identical across thirteen typologically diverse languages and only the XLM-RoBERTa text branch varies. We evaluate two CLIP architectures spanning a 7x visual-encoder scale gap (XLM-R base + ViT-B/32, ~87M visual parameters; XLM-R large + ViT-H/14, ~632M) on 11 concepts and 210 images, and quantify cross-language agreement via cluster-mask IoU, top-percentile IoU, and Spearman rank correlation against an English reference (n=2,310 paired observations per language). Three findings emerge. First, low-resource languages (Arabic, Basque, Luxembourgish) incur a structural penalty at both backbone scales (Wilcoxon HR>LR p<10^-300; cluster-mask IoU gap +0.114 at base, +0.143 at large), isolating the deficit to the text branch. Second, scaling the encoder 7x widens the gap for structural failure cases (Basque Δ=-0.056, Luxembourgish Δ=-0.076) while improving Arabic (Δ=+0.033), separating corpus-coverage from tokeniser-fertility failures. Third, peak similarity is preserved across languages (mean ratio 0.94 at large scale) while cluster-mask IoU drops sharply, identifying spatial misalignment, not signal collapse, as the dominant failure mode. At 3.4-3.9 Wh per 1,000 queries, dense-CLIP grounding is competitive with high-throughput inference budgets, positioning it as a practical substrate for energy-aware multilingual deployment.

Mean-pooled cosine similarity is the default metric for comparing neural representations across languages, modalities, and tasks. We establish that this metric is not length-invariant: under the anisotropy that characterizes modern transformer representations, mean-pooled cosine grows monotonically in sequence length, independent of representational content. Empirically, on HumanEvalPack across four code LLMs, the length ratio alone explains $R^2 = 0.52$--$0.75$ of cross-language "Python proximity," while AST depth and shared-token fraction add less than 3% of explained variance beyond length. Substituting Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) reduces explained variance by 83% and reverses the sign of the length coefficient ($β_{\mathrm{len}}: +0.86 \to -0.37$). The same pattern holds in Mistral-7B on parallel WMT pairs ($R^2 = 0.23$ EN-FR, $R^2 = 0.33$ EN-DE for cosine; $R^2 < 0.01$ for CKA). In CLIP ViT-B/32, mean-pooling reduces the length effect relative to EOS-pooling ($R^2: 0.21 \to {<}0.01$), as predicted by the theory's dependence on anisotropy. We argue that length-invariant metrics such as CKA should be the default for cross-representation comparisons, and that recent claims of cross-lingual representational convergence built on mean-pooled cosine warrant re-examination.

Indirect prompt injection remains a persistent weakness in retrieval-augmented and tool-using LLM systems, and the problem becomes harder to characterise in multilingual settings. We present MIPIAD, a defense framework evaluated on English and Bangla that combines a sequence classifier fine-tuned from Qwen2.5-1.5B via LoRA (XLPID), TF-IDF lexical features, and validation-tuned ensembling through late fusion, stacking, and gradient boosting. The framework is evaluated on a synthetic benchmark built from BIPIA(Yi et al., 2023) templates spanning five task families -- email, table, QA, abstract, and code-comprising over 1.43 million generated samples, with train and test splits using mutually exclusive attack categories. Across the experiments, lexical signals prove strong (TF-IDF+SVM F1=0.77), and the hybrid XLPID+TF-IDF ensemble achieves the best overall F1 (0.9205) while the Boosting Ensemble achieves the best AUROC (0.9378). Ensemble methods consistently reduce the English-Bangla cross-lingual gap relative to standalone neural models. The pipeline is designed for extensibility: NLLB-200 supports over 200 languages and XLPID's multilingual backbone can be retargeted to additional languages without architectural changes; empirical validation is currently limited to English and Bangla

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive multilingual capabilities for well-resourced languages, yet their performance on low-resource African languages remains poorly understood and largely unevaluated. This paper presents Nsanku, a systematic benchmark that evaluates the zero-shot machine translation performance of 19 open-weight and proprietary LLMs across 43 Ghanaian languages paired with English. Evaluation sentences were sourced from the YouVersion Bible platform, providing 300 sentence pairs per language. Two complementary automatic metrics are employed: Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) and Character n-gram F-Score (chrF), alongside an average accuracy score and a cross-language consistency dimension. Nsanku represents the most comprehensive LLM translation evaluation for Ghanaian languages conducted to date. Results show that gemini-2.5-flash achieves the highest overall average score of 26.88 (BLEU: 24.60, chrF: 29.16), followed by claude-sonnet-4-5 at 24.87 (BLEU: 22.46, chrF: 27.28) and gpt-4.1 at 23.20 (BLEU: 21.15, chrF: 25.24). Among open-weight models, kimi-k2-instruct-0905 leads at an average score of 20.87. A critical finding from the consistency analysis is that no model and no language reached the Leaders quadrant of high performance and high consistency simultaneously, indicating that current LLMs are not yet reliably usable for Ghanaian language translation at scale. Siwu achieved the highest per-language average score at 25.73 while Nkonya scored lowest at 11.65. Nsanku establishes a publicly available, community-extensible evaluation infrastructure for African language NLP research.

Text-in-image editing has become a key capability for visual content creation, yet existing benchmarks remain overwhelmingly English-centric and often conflate visual plausibility with semantic correctness. We introduce MULTITEXTEDIT, a controlled benchmark of 3,600 instances spanning 12 typologically diverse languages, 5 visual domains, and 7 editing operations. Language variants of each instance share a common visual base and are paired with a human-edited reference and region masks, isolating the language variable for cross-lingual comparison. To capture script-level errors that coarse text-matching metrics miss, such as missing diacritics, reversed RTL order, and mixed-script renderings, we introduce a language fidelity (LSF) metric scored by a two-stage LVM protocol that first traces the edited target text and then judges it in isolation, reaching a quadratic-weighted \k{appa} of 0.76 against native-speaker annotators. Evaluating 12 open-source and proprietary systems with LSF alongside standard semantic and mask-aware pixel metrics, we find pronounced cross-lingual degradation for every model, largest on Hebrew and Arabic and smallest on Dutch and Spanish, and concentrated in text accuracy and script fidelity rather than in coarse structural dimensions. We also uncover a pervasive semantic and pixel mismatch, where outputs preserve global layout and background fidelity yet distort script-specific forms.

This paper argues that contemporary multilingual NLP has converged on a fragile and misleading paradigm of incidental multilingualism. Today's LLMs appear multilingual largely because they are trained on massive, uneven web corpora, not because multilingual or multicultural competence has been treated as a core design objective. We contend that this paradigm systematically produces unequal, brittle, and opaque behavior across languages, with severe consequences in real-world and agentic deployments where models must reason, plan, and act across multiple linguistic contexts. We report a focused empirical study of two practical questions: which languages models self-report as supported and which languages they actually respond in across multilingual prompts. We additionally demonstrate how even a simple language-change attack can surface these failures and expose hidden assumptions about language in LLM-based systems. To address this, we call for a shift toward multilingualism by design: a research agenda that treats equitable multilingual performance, cultural grounding, and cross-lingual behavioral understanding as first-class goals in all aspects of the model pipeline.

This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework grounded in the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skill Level Descriptions and applies it to Claude (Sonnet 4.6) across six languages: English, French, Romanian, Spanish, Italian, and German. We administer a battery of 12 semantically equivalent prompt clusters spanning ILR complexity levels 1 through 3+, collect 216 responses (12 prompts, 6 languages, 3 runs), and analyze outputs through a two-layer methodology combining automated quantitative metrics with expert ILR qualitative assessment. Quantitative analysis reveals that French responses are approximately 30% longer than German responses on identical prompts, and that creative and affective clusters show the highest cross-lingual surface divergence. Qualitative analysis, conducted by a six-language professional with 12 years of ILR/OPI assessment experience, identifies five cross-lingual variation patterns: systematic differences in pragmatic disambiguation strategies, aesthetic and literary tradition divergence in creative output, language-internal technical terminology norms, cultural calibration gaps evidenced by the absence of culture-specific content in favor of culturally neutralized templates, and language-specific institutional referral behavior in emotional support responses. We argue that ILR-informed expert judgment applied to LLM outputs constitutes a novel and underreported evaluation methodology that complements purely computational benchmarks, and that cross-lingual output variation in Claude is interpretable, domain-dependent, and consequential for equitable multilingual AI deployment.

Do large language models (LLMs) truly acquire embodied cognition and cultural conventions from text? We introduce demonstratives, fundamental spatial expressions like "this/that" in English and "zhè/nà" in Chinese, as a novel probe for grounded knowledge. Using 6,400 responses from 320 native speakers, we establish a human baseline: English speakers reliably distinguish proximal-distal referents but struggle with perspective-taking, while Chinese speakers switch perspectives fluently but tolerate distal ambiguity. In contrast, five state-of-the-art LLMs fail to inherently understand the proximal-distal contrast and show no cultural differences, defaulting to English-centric reasoning. Our study contributes (i) a new task, based on demonstratives, as a new lens for evaluating embodied cognition and cultural conventions; (ii) empirical evidence of cross-cultural asymmetries in human interpretation; (iii) a new perspective on the egocentric-sociocentric debate, showing both orientations coexist but vary across languages; and (iv) a call to address individual variation in future model design.

This paper presents PSA-Eval, a failure-centered runtime evaluation framework for deployed trilingual public-space agents. The central claim is that, when the evaluation object shifts from a static input-output mapping to a runtime system, the basic unit of analysis should shift from score to failure. PSA-Eval extends the conventional chain Question -> Answer -> Score -> End into Question -> Batch -> Run -> Score -> Failure Case -> Repair -> Regression Batch, making failures traceable, reviewable, repairable, and regression-testable. The framework uses trilingual equivalent inputs as controlled probes for observing group-level cross-language policy drift. We conduct a pilot study on a real trilingual digital front-desk system deployed in the lobby of an international financial institution. The pilot uses a simplified single-foundation-model setting (MA = MB), so the observed drift should not be interpreted as an A/B foundation-model difference. The study contains 81 samples organized into 27 trilingual equivalent question groups. Although the system achieves an average score of 23.15/24, 14 groups show non-zero cross-language score drift, 5 groups show drift of at least 3 points, and the maximum drift reaches 9 points. These results provide initial evidence that failure-centered runtime evaluation can expose structured deployment signals hidden by aggregate scoring.

We investigate whether neural models trained exclusively on modern morphological data can recover cross-lingual lexical structure consistent with historical reconstruction. Using BantuMorph v7, a transformer over Bantu morphological paradigms, we analyze 14 Eastern and Southern Bantu languages, extract encoder embeddings for their noun and verb lemmas, and identify 728 noun and 1,525 verb cognate candidates shared across 5+ languages. Evaluating these candidates against established historical resources-the Bantu Lexical Reconstructions database (BLR3; 4,786 reconstructed Proto-Bantu forms) and the ASJP basic vocabulary-we confirm 10 of the top 11 noun candidates (90.9%) align with previously reconstructed Proto-Bantu forms, including *-ntU 'person' (8 languages), *gombe 'cow' (9 languages), and *mUn (9 languages). Extending to verbs, 12 verb cognates align with reconstructed Proto-Bantu roots, including *-bon- 'see' and *-jIm- 'stand', each attested across wide geographic ranges. Cross-model validation using an independent translation model (NLLB-600M) confirms these patterns: both models recover cognate clusters and phylogenetic groupings consistent with established Guthrie-zone classifications (p < 0.01). Cross-lingual noun class analysis reveals that all 13 productive classes maintain >0.83 cosine similarity across languages (within-class > between-class, p < 10^-9). Our dataset is restricted to Eastern and Southern Bantu, so we interpret these results as recovering shared Bantu lexical structure consistent with Proto-Bantu rather than definitively distinguishing Proto-Bantu retentions from later regional innovations.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) scale, data curation has shifted from maximizing volume to optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio by performing quality filtering. However, for many languages, native high quality data is insufficient to train robust quality classifiers. This work investigates the idea that quality markers in embedding space may show cross-lingual consistency, which would allow high-resource languages to subsidize the filtering of low-resource ones. We evaluate various filtering strategies, including cross-lingual transfer, third quartile sampling (Q3), and retention rate tuning. Our results demonstrate that massive multilingual pooling frequently outperforms monolingual baselines in both rank stability and aggregate accuracy for a 1B model trained on 103B tokens, delivering gains for high resource languages (1.2% increase in aggregate normalized accuracy for French) and matching or exceeding monolingual baselines for low-resource languages. However, we find that scale alone does not guarantee stability. Furthermore, for high-resource languages like French, we show that refining the decision boundary through third quartile sampling (Q3) or tuning the retention rate is necessary to fully leverage the multilingual signal.

This paper investigates Multilingual Medical Question Answering across high-resource (English, Spanish, French, Italian) and low-resource (Basque, Kazakh) languages. We evaluate three types of external evidence sources across models of varying size: curated repositories of specialized medical knowledge, web-retrieved content, and explanations from LLM's parametric knowledge. Moreover, we conduct experiments with multilingual, monolingual and cross-lingual retrieval. Our results demonstrate that larger models consistently achieve superior performance in English across baseline evaluations. When incorporating external knowledge, web-retrieved data in English proves most beneficial for high-resource languages. Conversely, for low-resource languages, the most effective strategy combines retrieval in both English and the target language, achieving comparable accuracy to high-resource language results. These findings challenge the assumption that external knowledge systematically improves performance and reveal that effective strategies depend on both the source of language resources and on model scale. Furthermore, specialized medical knowledge sources such as PubMed are limited: while they provide authoritative expert knowledge, they lack adequate multilingual coverage

Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation (mRAG) leverages cross-lingual evidence to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) in global knowledge. However, we show that current mRAG systems suffer from a language bias during reranking, systematically favoring English and the query's native language. By introducing an estimated oracle evidence analysis, we quantify a substantial performance gap between existing rerankers and the achievable upper bound. Further analysis reveals a critical distributional mismatch: while optimal predictions require evidence scattered across multiple languages, current systems systematically suppress such ``answer-critical'' documents, thereby limiting downstream generation performance. To bridge this gap, we propose \textit{\textbf{L}anguage-\textbf{A}gnostic \textbf{U}tility-driven \textbf{R}eranker \textbf{A}lignment (LAURA)}, which aligns multilingual evidence ranking with downstream generative utility. Experiments across diverse languages and generation models show that LAURA effectively mitigates language bias and consistently improves mRAG performance.

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

Achieving cultural alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly depends on synthetic data generation. For such synthesis, the most vital initial step is seed curation; however, current methods lack quantifiable standards for selecting these seeds. Existing approaches rely on unscalable manual curation or bias-prone LLM extraction, treating cultural specificity as an abstract concept rather than a measurable signal. In this paper, we address this "quantification gap" by proposing C-Mining, an unsupervised framework that transforms the discovery of cultural seeds from a subjective selection process into a computable data mining formulation. Our approach exploits a novel geometric insight, leveraging the cross-lingual misalignment of cultural concepts within pre-trained embedding spaces as a quantifiable discovery signal. By systematically identifying these regions characterized by pronounced linguistic exclusivity and geometric isolation, while actively filtering out noise, C-Mining automatically extracts high-fidelity Culture Points (CPs) from raw multilingual corpora without reliance on human or LLM supervision, reducing preparation costs by more than 150-fold. We further leverage the mined knowledge to steer the synthesis of diverse instruction-tuning datasets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this seed-centric approach significantly enhances cultural understanding and reasoning capabilities, achieving a +6.03 point improvement on CulturalBench-Hard and surpassing state-of-the-art baselines, providing a scalable, quantifiable solution for high-quality cultural data synthesis.

We introduce LRLspoof, a large-scale multilingual synthetic-speech corpus for cross-lingual spoof detection, comprising 2,732 hours of audio generated with 24 open-source TTS systems across 66 languages, including 45 low-resource languages under our operational definition. To evaluate robustness without requiring target-domain bonafide speech, we benchmark 11 publicly available countermeasures using threshold transfer: for each model we calibrate an EER operating point on pooled external benchmarks and apply the resulting threshold, reporting spoof rejection rate (SRR). Results show model-dependent cross-lingual disparity, with spoof rejection varying markedly across languages even under controlled conditions, highlighting language as an independent source of domain shift in spoof detection. The dataset is publicly available at \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/lab260/LRLspoof}{\textbf{\underline{\textit{HuggingFace}}}} and \href{https://modelscope.cn/datasets/lab260/LRLspoof}{\textbf{\underline{\textit{ModelScope}}}}

Equitable access to reliable health information is vital when integrating AI into healthcare. Yet, information quality varies across languages, raising concerns about the reliability and consistency of multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs). We systematically examine cross-lingual disparities in pre-training source and factuality alignment in LLM answers for multilingual healthcare Q&A across English, German, Turkish, Chinese (Mandarin), and Italian. We (i) constructed Multilingual Wiki Health Care (MultiWikiHealthCare), a multilingual dataset from Wikipedia; (ii) analyzed cross-lingual healthcare coverage; (iii) assessed LLM response alignment with these references; and (iv) conducted a case study on factual alignment through the use of contextual information and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Our findings reveal substantial cross-lingual disparities in both Wikipedia coverage and LLM factual alignment. Across LLMs, responses align more with English Wikipedia, even when the prompts are non-English. Providing contextual excerpts from non-English Wikipedia at inference time effectively shifts factual alignment toward culturally relevant knowledge. These results highlight practical pathways for building more equitable, multilingual AI systems for healthcare.

Tokenization is the first -- and often least scrutinized -- step of most NLP pipelines. Standard algorithms for learning tokenizers rely on frequency-based objectives, which favor languages dominant in the training data and consequently leave lower-resource languages with tokenizations that are disproportionately longer, morphologically implausible, or even riddled with $<UNK>$ placeholders. This phenomenon ultimately amplifies computational and financial inequalities between users from different language backgrounds. To remedy this, we introduce Parity-aware Byte Pair Encoding (BPE), a variant of the widely-used BPE algorithm. At every merge step, Parity-aware BPE applies a fair-max rule that maximizes the compression gain of the currently worst-compressed language, trading a small amount of global compression for cross-lingual parity. We find empirically that Parity-aware BPE reduces tokenization inequality -- operationalized by the Gini coefficient of per-language token costs -- by up to 89% relative to Classical BPE. This comes with negligible impact on global compression rate and no evidence of systematic degradation in downstream LM performance.

Brain-language model alignment is often interpreted as evidence that transformer models implement computations similar to those of the human brain. This assumes that neural predictivity reflects internal computational properties of large language models (LLMs), such as hierarchical contextual processing, predictive coding, or representational compression. An alternative possibility is that brain scores primarily reflect stable lexical-semantic correspondences shared by language models and the brain. Here we tested these interpretations using whole-brain encoding models across Mandarin, English, and French. Across all three languages, transformer representations significantly predicted activity in a distributed network spanning classical language regions, transmodal cortical systems, and subcortical structures. These spatial patterns showed substantial cross-linguistic overlap and remained remarkably stable across layers, providing little evidence that model depth systematically maps onto cortical processing hierarchies. Likewise, contextual transformer embeddings did not consistently outperform static lexical embeddings, despite providing some unique predictive variance. Finally, neither surprisal nor intrinsic dimensionality reproduced the layer-wise profile of brain scores, arguing against prediction and information compression as primary explanations for brain-LLM alignment. Together, these findings suggest that brain-LLM alignment is more robust across languages, transformer depth, and model architectures than previously appreciated, but less informative about shared computational mechanisms. Our results are more consistent with neural predictivity reflecting stable representational structure preserved across model transformations than with a one-to-one correspondence between their underlying computations.

Moral language is subtle and culturally variable, making it difficult to translate faithfully across languages. Idiomatic expressions, slang, and cultural references introduce hard-to-avoid translation artifacts. Yet automated moral values classification depends on language-specific annotated corpora that exist almost exclusively in English. We investigate whether LLM-based translation can bridge this gap, taking Polish as a test case. Using ~50k morally-annotated social media posts from a diverse range of topics, we apply a principled four-method validation pipeline: LaBSE cross-lingual embedding similarity, Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA), LLM-as-judge evaluation, and deep learning classifier parity tests. We show that despite shortcomings in handling slang, vulgarity, and culturally-loaded expressions, direct translation preserves subtle moral cues well enough to be harvested by cross-lingual machine learning - with a mean cosine similarity of 0.89 and classification accuracy gaps of 0.01-0.02 AUROC across foundations. These results demonstrate that machine translation is a practical and cost-effective path to moral research in languages currently under-resourced in this domain. We demonstrate this for Polish as a representative Slavic language, with expected generalization to related languages.