mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Hidden Language Consistency Phenomena in Reasoning LLMs

arXiv 2608.08447 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Multilingual reasoning models are commonly evaluated by whether they arrive at the correct answer, but not by whether they preserve the intended language while reasoning and responding. This omission conceals important multilingual behaviors that emerge as tasks become harder. In this paper, we study task difficulty, task accuracy, thinking-language consistency (TC), and answer-language consistency (AC) across reasoning models using PolyMath benchmark in eight languages and four difficulty levels. We uncover four findings: (1) language consistency exhibits four difficulty-dependent behaviors: output-language consistency remains aligned with input, remains misaligned, degrades gradually, or collapses abruptly. (2) We identify the language consistency breakdown effect, where increasing difficulty can cause a sudden drop in output-language consistency, especially in less strongly represented and non-Latin-script languages. (3) Due to this breakdown effect, accuracy can be preserved or even improved at a harder difficulty level as the model shifts to its internal dominant language. (4) Quantization can improve or degrade output-language consistency independently of its effect on accuracy, with GPTQ and AWQ often outperforming AutoRound under tolerance-based voting with ε = 1.0. These results show that multilingual capability cannot be characterized by accuracy alone; reliable evaluation should jointly consider task accuracy, language consistency, and task difficulty for multilingual benchmarks.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 42 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Report14 May
  2. 2025Phi-4-reasoning Technical Report30 Apr

Other references · 13

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  3. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  4. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
  5. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
  6. 2022GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformerscited by 1,838
  7. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
  8. 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,290
  9. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,220
  10. 2024Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMscited by 564
  11. 2025Olmo 3cited by 95
  12. 2025Quantization Hurts Reasoning? An Empirical Study on Quantized Reasoning Modelscited by 68
1 more
  1. 2024From One to Many: Expanding the Scope of Toxicity Mitigation in Language Modelscited by 18

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025A Comprehensive Evaluation of Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: Performance, Consistency, and Faithfulness Across Languages
  2. 2024Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency
  3. 2026Rethinking the Multilingual Reasoning Gap with Layer Swap
  4. 2025Beg to Differ: Understanding Reasoning-Answer Misalignment Across Languages
  5. 2025Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models?
  6. 2026Does Inference Scaling Improve Reasoning Faithfulness? A Multi-Model Analysis of Self-Consistency Tradeoffs
  7. 2025Language Mixing in Reasoning Language Models: Patterns, Impact, and Internal Causes
  8. 2025Multidimensional Consistency Improves Reasoning in Language Models