Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How and Where to Translate? The Impact of Translation Strategies in Cross-lingual LLM Prompting

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.22923 v1 pith:KHB2RJ6T submitted 2025-07-21 cs.CL cs.AI

How and Where to Translate? The Impact of Translation Strategies in Cross-lingual LLM Prompting

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords languagesmultilingualcross-lingualdifferentimpactpromptpromptingacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite advances in the multilingual capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance varies substantially across different languages and tasks. In multilingual retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based systems, knowledge bases (KB) are often shared from high-resource languages (such as English) to low-resource ones, resulting in retrieved information from the KB being in a different language than the rest of the context. In such scenarios, two common practices are pre-translation to create a mono-lingual prompt and cross-lingual prompting for direct inference. However, the impact of these choices remains unclear. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the impact of different prompt translation strategies for classification tasks with RAG-enhanced LLMs in multilingual systems. Experimental results show that an optimized prompting strategy can significantly improve knowledge sharing across languages, therefore improve the performance on the downstream classification task. The findings advocate for a broader utilization of multilingual resource sharing and cross-lingual prompt optimization for non-English languages, especially the low-resource ones.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RealityTest: How People Probe AI Identity and Whether Models Disclose It

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RealityTest is a human-grounded multilingual multimodal benchmark showing that only 31% of people ask AI identity directly and that suppression instructions plus question phrasing dominate disclosure behavior over mod...