2026· Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilinguality in the Era of Large Language Models (MeLLM 2026)· pp. 119-126· 0 citations· 26 references
TL;DR
Structural gaps are revealed in how current multilingual LLMs handle morphologically rich, low-resource Indic languages and point to areas where dedicated Marathi pretraining data would most benefit future work.
Abstract
Evaluation of multilingual large language models has grown rapidly in recent years, yet Marathi, spoken by over 83 million people across India, has received almost no systematic probing beyond surface-level benchmark tests. Most existing multilingual evaluations either omit Marathi entirely or rely on machine-translated test sets that fail to capture the morphological complexity that de-fines the language. We evaluate four models, namely Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen3-32B, on our manually curated Marathi dataset across three probing dimensions: Devanagari versus Roman-ized script, Marathi-English code-mixing, and syntactic structures including SOV word order, vibhakti case markers, verb gender agreement, and postpositions. Models are tested under English and Marathi instruction conditions across translation, similarity, grammat-icality, and case marker tasks. Translation quality is evaluated using both token-level F1 and BERTScore to capture paraphrase equivalence beyond surface word overlap. All models drop between 7.9% and 20.5% on Roman-ized input. The negative subjunctive marker nasta is ignored by every model. Vibhakti case markers are consistently replaced with Hindi equivalents, revealing that multilingual training has not produced separate internal representations for Hindi and Marathi despite their distinct morphological systems. These findings reveal structural gaps in how current multilingual LLMs handle morphologically rich, low-resource Indic languages and point to spe-cific areas where dedicated Marathi pretraining data would most benefit future work.
This work introduces M-GATE (Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency), a benchmark of linguistic proficiency spanning 30 typologically diverse languages from high- to low-resource, and evaluates over 50 models in more than 80 configurations.
Tomáš Burkert, Angelika Peljak-Łapińska, David Zelený· 1 citation· ⚡1
A PMI-based translation metric is proposed, which is less dependent on the target language and correlates strongly with chrF, and finds that CLA with English predicts translation quality comparably to or better than source-target CLA.
Adnan Al Ali, Kathy Hämmerl, Jindrich Libovický et al.· 0 citations
The results indicate that a moderately sized, shared self-attention architecture can deliver production-quality multilin-gual translation within the resource constraints of an academic de-ployment, while surfacing clear directions – low-resource language coverage, domain adaptation, and speech-based extension – for con...
Darshan Gowda D H and Dr. Kruti R· International Journal of Adv...· 0 citations
The findings show that the quality of the datasets and their alignment with the domain will greatly affect the performance of the model, that attention-based mechanisms can aid in explain ability, and that few-shot large language models can still produce structurally coherent translations of Tamil.
S. Sriharshaa, Sangeetha Sivanesan, S. Nirmala· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The results show complementary error-sensitivity profiles: multilingual sentence embeddings provide useful semantic adequacy signals but are better suited as components of broader translation-evaluation frameworks than as standalone metrics.
Eleftherios Kalogeros, Athanasios Ntalakas, M. Gergatsoulis et al.· 0 citations
VEXMLM demonstrates that vocabulary expansion and tokenizer adaptation and integration provide an effective, computationally efficient path to improve multilingual models for underrepresented languages without retraining from scratch.