An In-Vitro Study on Cross-Lingual Generalization in Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.
Builds on
27 of 49 references.
References · 27
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2020GLU Variants Improve Transformercited by 1,724
- 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,425
- 2021ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte modelscited by 504
- 2020How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 313
- 2021Scaling Laws for Transfercited by 265
- 2024How do Large Language Models Handle Multilingualism?cited by 148
- 2023The Quantization Model of Neural Scalingcited by 137
- 2022Language Contamination Helps Explain the Cross-lingual Capabilities of English Pretrained Modelscited by 90
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 1, Learning Hierarchical Language Structurescited by 83
- 2023Tokenization Impacts Multilingual Language Modeling: Assessing Vocabulary Allocation and Overlap Across Languagescited by 61
15 more
- 2024Probing the Emergence of Cross-lingual Alignment during LLM Trainingcited by 38
- 2025Between Circuits and Chomsky: Pre-pretraining on Formal Languages Imparts Linguistic Biasescited by 36
- 2023Injecting structural hints: Using language models to study inductive biases in language learningcited by 33
- 2022Analyzing the Mono- and Cross-Lingual Pretraining Dynamics of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 32
- 2024MAGNET: Improving the Multilingual Fairness of Language Models with Adaptive Gradient-Based Tokenizationcited by 31
- 2022A Balanced Data Approach for Evaluating Cross-Lingual Transfer: Mapping the Linguistic Blood Bankcited by 29
- 2024A Percolation Model of Emergence: Analyzing Transformers Trained on a Formal Languagecited by 26
- 2025The Strawberry Problem: Emergence of Character-level Understanding in Tokenized Language Modelscited by 11
- 2025One Tokenizer To Rule Them All: Emergent Language Plasticity via Multilingual Tokenizerscited by 11
- 2025Beyond Literal Token Overlap: Token Alignability for Multilingualitycited by 9
- 2026Perplexity Cannot Always Tell Right from Wrongcited by 8
- 2025Explaining and Mitigating Crosslingual Tokenizer Inequitiescited by 7
- 2022You Can Have Your Data and Balance It Too: Towards Balanced and Efficient Multilingual Modelscited by 6
- 2024Measuring Cross-lingual Transfer in Bytescited by 6
- 2025Creating ConLangs to Probe the Metalinguistic Grammatical Knowledge of LLMscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.