SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2508.11017

Beyond the Rosetta Stone: Unification Forces in Generalization Dynamics

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with cross-lingual knowledge transfer: they sometimes hallucinate when asked in one language about facts expressed in a different language during training. This work introduces a controlled setting to study the causes and training dynamics of this phenomenon by training small Transformer models from scratch on synthetic multilingual datasets. Depending on (1) the correlation between facts and the language they were learned in (informativeness), and (2) the ease of language identification (extractability), models either develop unified representations across languages or separate representations; only when representations are unified do facts transfer across languages. Based on these insights, we propose a unifying perspective which explains a range of prior observations concerning cross-lingual transfer in multilingual LLMs. Our work shows controlled settings can shed light on pre-training dynamics and suggests methods to encourage representational unification as part of training that would improve LLMs' cross-lingual transfer.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Carter Blum, Katja Filippova, Ann Yuan, Asma Ghandeharioun, Julian Zimmert, Fred Zhang, Jessica Hoffmann, Tal Linzen, Martin Wattenberg, Lucas Dixon, Mor Geva. 2026-08-28. Beyond the Rosetta Stone: Unification Forces in Generalization Dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL