Measuring the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap: How the language of the evidence shapes what language models understand

arXiv:2608.06506 · cs.CL · Submitted 2026-08-06 · Read on arXiv

Rafael da Silva, Jeff Eicher

cs.CL

Submitted: 2026-08-06

Updated: 2026-08-10

Comments: 55 pages, 17 figures. Submitted to Computational Linguistics (MIT Press / ACL). Supplementary Material: 55 pages, 4 figures

Code: https://github.com/rafa-rodriguess/CLCG_pub

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: Language models are often evaluated as though capabilities demonstrated in English remain equally available when the same content is presented in other languages.

Terminology

Abstract

Language models are often evaluated as though capabilities demonstrated in English remain equally available when the same content is presented in other languages. Traditional multilingual benchmarks rarely isolate language while holding content, question, reference answer, model, and evaluation unit constant. We define the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap (CLCG) as the reduction in response quality when the same content and question are presented in a target language rather than in English. Using ParallelQA-18, a professionally human-translated parallel corpus, we evaluate five models from five laboratories on a stratified sample of 150 articles across 18 languages (English reference; Portuguese high-resource baseline; 16 targets spanning Joshi et al. 2020 classes 0-4). A within-item design varies only passage language. The primary estimator contrasts English versus pooled target-language Token-F1 micro-means on higher-complexity open-ended questions, with article-cluster bootstrap intervals. The primary pooled CLCG is 0.078 (95% CI 0.072-0.084), about a 17% reduction relative to the English score; the equal-language macro summary is 0.077. Net of Portuguese, the macro gap is 0.016 (95% CI 0.013-0.020). Language-level CLCG is negatively associated with Joshi resource class (rho = -0.594, p = 0.015, n = 16). In blinded paired human evaluations, higher-resource responses are preferred in 61.6% of decisive judgments (estimated preference probability 0.655, 95% CI 0.558-0.741). Capabilities shown in English should not be assumed to transfer equally to other languages; English-centered evaluations may overestimate quality for users of low-resource languages.

Sources

Related papers