analiza aiqbench
This research isolates how language interfaces directly impact an LLM's realized capabilities, revealing that playing strength and strategic reasoning vary significantly across different linguistic contexts even when the underlying model remains fixed. By using multilingual self-play to separate skill from general knowledge, the study identifies specific failure modes in spatial reasoning and decision-making that hinder the development of truly equitable multilingual models. Understanding these cross-lingual discrepancies is essential for building AI systems that perform consistently regardless of the user's language choice.
Skill Issue: Are Skills Language-Invariant in LLMs?
arXiv:2608.25832v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models access knowledge inconsistently across languages, but to what extent do they differ in their skill sets when interacting with different languages? This work quantifies cross-lingual skill inconsistency orthogonally from knowledge and general benchmark performance. We do this via multilingual self-play: two instances of the same model compete in a text-based game, each interacting through a different language interface. Since the model, opponent, rules, state space, and available actions remain fixed, this setting isolates the effect of language on the model's realized behavior. We build a multilingual extension to TextArena and evaluate three open-weight models across eight languages and six games covering spatial reasoning, imperfect information, resource allocation, and repeated interaction. We find that the same model can exhibit markedly different playing strength across languages, with systematic variation in win--loss margins, invalid actions, and strategic tendencies. Detailed analyses reveal language-specific failures in spatial reasoning, card-conditioned decisions, and optimal move selection. In some settings, changing only the intermediate reasoning language recovers much of the lost performance, suggesting that language can affect different stages of the decision process. These results show that skill discrepancies are a measurable major roadblock in the development of truly multilingual models. Better understanding these discrepancies can help us design models that perform more equitably across languages.
Title:Skill Issue: Are Skills Language-Invariant in LLMs?
Abstract:Large language models access knowledge inconsistently across languages, but to what extent do they differ in their skill sets when interacting with different languages? This work quantifies cross-lingual skill inconsistency orthogonally from knowledge and general benchmark performance. We do this via multilingual self-play: two instances of the same model compete in a text-based game, each interacting through a different language interface. Since the model, opponent, rules, state space, and available actions remain fixed, this setting isolates the effect of language on the model's realized behavior. We build a multilingual extension to TextArena and evaluate three open-weight models across eight languages and six games covering spatial reasoning, imperfect information, resource allocation, and repeated interaction. We find that the same model can exhibit markedly different playing strength across languages, with systematic variation in win--loss margins, invalid actions, and strategic tendencies. Detailed analyses reveal language-specific failures in spatial reasoning, card-conditioned decisions, and optimal move selection. In some settings, changing only the intermediate reasoning language recovers much of the lost performance, suggesting that language can affect different stages of the decision process. These results show that skill discrepancies are a measurable major roadblock in the development of truly multilingual models. Better understanding these discrepancies can help us design models that perform more equitably across languages.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.25832 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.25832v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25832 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 325 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Off-by-1 Labs: Why AI-generated vulnerability patches still require expert human review
1Password · 6 aug. 2026
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · 12 iun. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026