Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated improved machine translation performance over strong supervised baselines. This raises questions as to what mechanisms underlie how LLMs perform machine translation between languages. Motivated by recent interpretability findings—namely, that LLMs use massively multilingual latent feature representations to perform language modeling—we propose the interlingua hypothesis. The hypothesis holds that language models translate by reading a source sentence into a latent feature space, and generate a target sentence by reading from the latent feature space. We show three lines of evidence in support of this hypothesis: (1) variance in BLEU across language pairs is largely predictable from language-specific competences with no language pair–specific interaction terms; (2) many model components are causally influential in both monolingual tasks and translation tasks; (3) and fine-tuning on monolingual data recovers a large proportion of translation improvements relative to fine-tuning on aligned documents. Together, these provide convergent evidence in support of the interlingua hypothesis, and suggest new ways of understanding and improving how LLMs can be leveraged to perform translation tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to encode truth of statements in their activation space along a linear truth direction. Previous studies have argued that these directions are universal in certain aspects, while more recent work has questioned this conclusion drawing on limited generalization across some settings. In this work, we identify a number of limits of truth-direction universality that have not been previously understood. We first show that truth directions are highly layer-dependent, and that a full understanding of universality requires probing at many layers in the model. We then show that truth directions depend heavily on task type, emerging in earlier layers for factual and later layers for reasoning tasks; they also vary in performance across levels of task complexity. Finally, we show that model instructions can affect truth directions; simple correctness evaluation instructions significantly affect the geometry and the generalization ability of the truth probes. Our findings indicate that universality claims for truth directions are more limited than previously known, with significant differences observable for various model layers, task difficulties, task types, and prompt templates

Do LLMs process text and mathematics as a unified skill, or do these components rely on distinct underlying mechanisms? We investigate this question by disentangling the textual interpretation and mathematical solving steps in word problems drawn from Brazil’s largest college entrance exam (ENEM) and GSM8K, a popular grade school-level benchmark. Using the symbolic solver SymPy, we transform word problems into equivalent purely mathematical representations, isolating equation formulation from textual comprehension. Our extended benchmarks enable a structured analysis of LLM performance across these two dimensions. Through empirical evaluations, we find that small-scale LLMs struggle significantly more with text interpretation than with equation solving, with accuracy dropping by a factor of 2 to 7 when solving full word problems compared to their math-only counterparts. Exploratory factor analysis confirms a bidimensional structure in LLM reasoning, where models exhibit distinct proficiencies in textual and mathematical components, underscoring the need for targeted improvements in language comprehension. By analyzing the latent factors associated with each model, our findings provide a framework for researchers and practitioners to make informed choices when selecting models based on computational costs and the nature of their tasks.