Retrieval heads, a subset of attention heads in Transformers, were studied in English, showing its crucial role in retrieving information from the context. We expand the study of retrieval heads to multilingual context and find that while nearly half of all retrieval heads are often shared across multiple languages, language-specific retrieval heads also emerge. We further design a cross-lingual needle-in-the-haystack task, to identify Retrieval Transition Heads (RTH) that retrieve key information and further map it to target-language output. Our experiments reveal that RTHs do not always overlap with RH, and can be more vital for Chain-of-Thought reasoning in multilingual LLMs. Across four multilingual benchmarks (MMLU-ProX, MGSM, MLQA, and XQuAD) and two model families (Qwen2.5-7B Instruct and Llama3.1-8B Instruct), we demonstrate that masking RTH induces bigger performance drop than masking Retrieval Heads (RH). Specifically, for Llama3.1-8B Instruct, masking the top-25 RTHs results in an average 37.3-point drop (against 19.5-point drop from RH masking) in reasoning accuracy (MMLU-ProX, MGSM) and 9.0 F1-score reduction (against 5.1 drop for RH) in extractive QA (MLQA, XQuAD). Our work advances the understanding of multilingual LMs by isolating the attention heads responsible for mapping to target languages. Code available at https://github.com/NerdyVisky/multilingual-retrieval-transition-heads

Maintainability is a core dimension of software engineering, shaping how code is written, reviewed, and developed over time. While coding agents have demonstrated strong performance on single-issue tasks, it remains unclear how maintainable their code is when future agents build on top of it, potentially leading to compounding downstream effects. We investigate how agent code compares to human code in these maintenance settings, presenting CodeThread, a framework to construct controlled experiments from repository-level coding benchmarks. Applying CodeThread to four frontier coding agents and four benchmarks, we find that agents are less effective at resolving tasks when building on agent code compared to human code, with task resolve rate drops of up to 13.1%. Regression analysis reveals that many traditional software engineering maintainability metrics do not explain this difference. Instead, the clearest signals are subtler behavioral differences in agent code, such as changes to input validation and error handling, along with differences in downstream code size and task difficulty. These findings highlight the need to evaluate coding agents not only by immediate task resolution but also by maintainability, and point to potential sources of downstream errors introduced by agent code.