跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.10266 · v1

I play of the cello: Evaluating Constructional Bleeding in Multilingual LLMs with CALQUE

首次提交 2026-11-07 05:59
版本更新 2026-11-07 05:59
雷达观测 2026-11-10 10:11
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Languages use different morphosyntactic strategies to express the same meaning. Speakers of multiple languages are able to apply strategies from one language to another, either by mistake or intentionally, to produce a literal translation, or calque. Considering that large language models (LLMs) have been shown to generalize crosslingually, despite being predominantly trained on English, we investigate whether they overgeneralize constructional strategies from English to other languages. To test this, we create a dataset of 5583 sentence pairs across seven languages, matching literal translations of strategies from English into other languages, and literal translations of the other languages' strategies into English. We then quantify constructional bleeding by measuring how often strategies from English are assigned a higher probability than native strategies. We find that models often fail to assign higher probabilities to native strategies and tend to prefer English-derived strategies even when evaluating sentences in other languages. Our findings highlight the limitations of the current English-dominant training paradigm.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-07 05:59 · 最新观测版本

I play of the cello: Evaluating Constructional Bleeding in Multilingual LLMs with CALQUE

Languages use different morphosyntactic strategies to express the same meaning. Speakers of multiple languages are able to apply strategies from one language to another, either by mistake or intentionally, to produce a literal translation, or calque. Considering that large language models (LLMs) have been shown to generalize crosslingually, despite being predominantly trained on English, we investigate whether they overgeneralize constructional strategies from English to other languages. To test this, we create a dataset of 5583 sentence pairs across seven languages, matching literal translations of strategies from English into other languages, and literal translations of the other languages' strategies into English. We then quantify constructional bleeding by measuring how often strategies from English are assigned a higher probability than native strategies. We find that models often fail to assign higher probabilities to native strategies and tend to prefer English-derived strategies even when evaluating sentences in other languages. Our findings highlight the limitations of the current English-dominant training paradigm.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗