# Bridge Routing Heads: Where Multilingual Multi-hop Reasoning Lives in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09733 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09733/

## 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 2 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multilingual LLMs answer the same multi-hop reasoning question across languages, but we lack a mechanistic account of whether they share an internal circuit. We identify Bridge Routing Heads (BRH) in two large multilingual LLMs through a three-stage pipeline. The resulting language-specific head sets exhibit near-complete mutual exclusivity across the five languages, with a mean Jaccard similarity of only 0.017 for Llama 3.1 70B and 0.057 for Qwen 2.5 72B, revealing language-idiosyncratic circuits. Ablating general BRH increases two-hop Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL) by 39-89x the random-head baseline, providing direct causal evidence of their role. Amplifying these heads in a failing target-language pass rescues up to 51.7% of cross-lingual failures, with no training. The two models share this dual-circuit pattern but allocate heads differently: Llama concentrates chaining in a large general pool, while Qwen leans on larger language-specific pools. Together these results show that activation-level intervention alone can recover correct answers from cross-lingual reasoning failures.