Building machine translation (MT) systems for low-resource languages is notably difficult due to the scarcity of high-quality data. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved MT system performance, adapting them to lesser-represented languages remains challenging. In-context learning (ICL) may offer novel ways to adapt LLMs for low-resource MT by conditioning models on demonstration at inference time. In this study, we explore scaling low-resource machine translation ICL beyond the few-shot setting to thousands of examples with long-context models. We scale in-context token budget to 1M tokens and compare three types of training corpora used as in-context supervision: monolingual unsupervised data, instruction-style data, and parallel data (English–target and Indonesian–target). Our experiments on Javanese and Sundanese show that gains from additional context saturate quickly and can degrade near the maximum context window, with scaling behavior strongly dependent on corpus type. Notably, some forms of monolingual supervision can be competitive with parallel data, despite the latter offering additional supervision. Overall, our results characterize the effective limits and corpus-type sensitivity of long-context ICL for low-resource MT, highlighting that larger context windows do not necessarily yield proportional quality gains.

Tokenization is a critical component of the language modeling pipeline, but it is poorly understood. Tokenizers can drastically impact downstream performance, but currently there is mixed evidence about which intrinsic tokenizer evaluations are able to predict which tokenizers will result in a better language model before training the model. In this paper, we analyze approximately 200 language models trained on nine different languages. We evaluate both models and their tokenizers and test whether there is a relationship between any proposed intrinsic tokenizer evaluations and model performance, as measured by a wide variety of benchmarks. Despite the quantity and variety of proposed intrinsic tokenizer metrics, none consistently predicts downstream performance across model families, tasks, and languages. This motivates the need for novel tokenizer evaluation metrics and approaches. Our analysis of a novel linguistically grounded metric introduced in this work shows that new metrics can capture aspects of tokenizer quality that existing metrics miss, though their predictive power is likely to vary across model families and languages.

Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g., "I think the answer is 3" or "I suppose that’s right." Such beliefs inevitably intertwine with fact and knowledge, making the ability to handle them in tandem desirable for large language models (LLMs), as they are increasingly deployed in user-facing settings. Prior work showed that even capable LLMs exhibit a systemic weakness in acknowledging user beliefs grounded in incorrect information. We extend this evaluation to 10 LLMs across 18 epistemic expressions and find that the size and direction of this weakness depend on the verb used to express the belief, with the accuracy gap between factual and false information ranging from +50% on "I vaguely remember" to -14% on "I seriously doubt". We further show that the phenomenon stems from what we call task confusion: models default to fact-checking the underlying claim, overriding the user’s stated belief. We provide evidence where chains of thought that explicitly fact-check show lower accuracy on false information than those that do not, and a single instruction can reverse the failure across verb families. Mechanistically, models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, but suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods. Our findings clarify prior results and show how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs.

Language identification (LID) is a fundamental step in curating multilingual corpora. However, LID models still perform poorly for many languages, especially on the noisy and heterogeneous web data often used to train multilingual language models. In this paper, we introduce CommonLID, a community-driven, human-annotated LID benchmark for the web domain, covering 109 languages. Many of the included languages have been previously under-served, making CommonLID a key resource for developing more representative high-quality text corpora. We show CommonLID’s value by using it, alongside five other common evaluation sets, to test eight popular LID models. We analyse our results to situate our contribution and to provide an overview of the state of the art. In particular, we highlight that existing evaluations overestimate LID accuracy for many languages in the web domain. We make CommonLID and the code used to create it available under an open, permissive license.

Expert pruning is a practical deployment technique for Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. It reduces resource usage and mitigates expert redundancy, but its success depends strongly on the calibration set used for pruning. In domain-general settings, it is unclear which properties of the calibration data drive good pruning outcomes, and the effects of calibration perturbations are often unintuitive. We observe, for example, that calibration sets in different languages can lead to very similar pruning results despite appearing dissimilar on the surface.To address this, we propose Expert Calibration Lens, a lightweight analysis tool that compares expert activation patterns across datasets to predict the impact of calibration perturbations without repeatedly running expensive pruning procedures. We use activations that are quick to compute and evaluate the resulting analysis for downstream task performance.