Do Llamas Work in English? On the Latent Language of Multilingual Transformers

Overview

• This paper investigates whether multilingual language models rely on English as an internal "pivot" language when processing other languages.
• The researchers focus on the LLaMA-2 family of transformer models and use carefully designed prompts in non-English languages to track how the model's internal representations evolve.
• The study reveals three distinct phases in how the model processes the input and generates the output, shedding light on the origins of linguistic bias in these models.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers wanted to understand how multilingual language models, which are trained on a mix of languages but tend to be dominated by English, process and generate text in different languages. Do these models use English as an internal "pivot" language, relying on English-centric representations even when working with other languages?

To investigate this, the researchers focused on the LLaMA-2 family of transformer models. They created special prompts in non-English languages that had a single, clear correct answer. By tracking how the model's internal representations evolved as it processed these prompts, they could see if the model was consistently mapping the input to an English-centric "concept space" before generating the output.

The researchers found that the model's internal representations went through three distinct phases:

1. The initial input embedding was far from the final output embedding, suggesting the model had to do significant translation work.
2. In the middle layers, the model was able to identify the semantically correct next token, but still gave higher probability to the English version of that token.
3. Finally, the representations moved into a language-specific region of the embedding space, producing the correct output.

This suggests that the model's "concept space" - the abstract representations it uses to understand the meaning of the text - is closer to English than to other languages. This could help explain the linguistic biases often observed in these types of multilingual models.

Technical Explanation

The researchers used carefully constructed prompts in non-English languages to probe how multilingual language models, specifically the LLaMA-2 family of transformer models, process and generate text across different languages. By tracking the model's internal representations as it processed these prompts, they were able to uncover three distinct phases in the model's behavior:

1. Input Space: The initial input embedding of the final prompt token is far away from the output embedding of the correct next token. This suggests the model has to do significant "translation" work to map the input to the correct output.

2. Concept Space: In the middle layers, the model is already able to identify the semantically correct next token, but still gives higher probability to the English version of that token rather than the version in the input language. This indicates the model's "concept space" - the abstract representations it uses to understand the meaning of the text - is closer to English than to other languages.

3. Output Space: Finally, the representations move into a language-specific region of the embedding space, producing the correct output token in the input language.

These results shed light on the origins of linguistic bias in multilingual language models, suggesting that the internal "concept space" used by these models is more aligned with English than with other languages. This has important implications for understanding how large language models (LLMs) function and handle multilingualism (https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/how-do-large-language-models-handle-multilingualism).

Critical Analysis

The researchers provide a compelling analysis of how multilingual language models like LLaMA-2 process and generate text across different languages. Their careful experimental design and insightful tracking of the model's internal representations offer valuable insights into the origins of linguistic bias in these models.

One potential limitation of the study is that it focuses on a single family of models (LLaMA-2) and a limited set of non-English languages. It would be interesting to see if the same patterns hold true for other multilingual models and a more diverse set of languages (https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/language-specific-neurons-key-to-multilingual-capabilities).

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential implications of these findings for practical applications of multilingual language models (https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/could-we-have-had-better-multilingual-llms). Further research could explore how these insights could inform the development of more equitable and inclusive language models.

Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the inner workings of multilingual language models and highlights the importance of understanding and addressing linguistic biases in these powerful AI systems.

Conclusion

This paper offers a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of multilingual language models, revealing that they tend to rely on English as an internal "pivot" language when processing and generating text in other languages. The researchers' careful experimental design and analysis of the model's internal representations shed light on the origins of linguistic bias in these models, which have important implications for their practical applications and the development of more equitable and inclusive language AI.