REVIEW 2 cited by
Paths Not Taken: Understanding and Mending the Multilingual Factual Recall Pipeline
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
Paths Not Taken: Understanding and Mending the Multilingual Factual Recall Pipeline
read the original abstract
Multilingual large language models (LLMs) often exhibit factual inconsistencies across languages, with significantly better performance in factual recall tasks in English than in other languages. The causes of these failures, however, remain poorly understood. Using mechanistic analysis techniques, we uncover the underlying pipeline that LLMs employ, which involves using the English-centric factual recall mechanism to process multilingual queries and then translating English answers back into the target language. We identify two primary sources of error: insufficient engagement of the reliable English-centric mechanism for factual recall, and incorrect translation from English back into the target language for the final answer. To address these vulnerabilities, we introduce two vector interventions, both independent of languages and datasets, to redirect the model toward better internal paths for higher factual consistency. Our interventions combined increase the recall accuracy by over 35 percent for the lowest-performing language. Our findings demonstrate how mechanistic insights can be used to unlock latent multilingual capabilities in LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models
Language models represent their current reasoning in a small, readable set of verbalizable vectors (the J-space) that functions like a global workspace.
-
Rethinking Cross-lingual Gaps from a Statistical Viewpoint
Cross-lingual accuracy gaps in LLMs are dominated by higher response variance in target languages, not missing knowledge; ensembling and variance-reduction prompts shrink the gap.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.