Bridge Routing Heads: Where Multilingual Multi-hop Reasoning Lives in LLMs

arXiv:2610.09733 · cs.CL · Submitted 2026-10-07 · Read on arXiv

cs.CL

Submitted: 2026-10-07

Updated: 2026-10-07

Comments: Accepted at EMNLP 2026

Code: https://github.com/ICT-Convergence-Security-Lab-Chosun/bridge-routing-heads

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

The gist: Multilingual LLMs answer the same multi-hop reasoning question across languages, but we lack a mechanistic account of whether they share an internal circuit.

Terminology

Abstract

Multilingual LLMs answer the same multi-hop reasoning question across languages, but we lack a mechanistic account of whether they share an internal circuit. We identify Bridge Routing Heads (BRH) in two large multilingual LLMs through a three-stage pipeline. The resulting language-specific head sets exhibit near-complete mutual exclusivity across the five languages, with a mean Jaccard similarity of only 0.017 for Llama 3.1 70B and 0.057 for Qwen 2.5 72B, revealing language-idiosyncratic circuits. Ablating general BRH increases two-hop Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL) by 39-89x the random-head baseline, providing direct causal evidence of their role. Amplifying these heads in a failing target-language pass rescues up to 51.7% of cross-lingual failures, with no training. The two models share this dual-circuit pattern but allocate heads differently: Llama concentrates chaining in a large general pool, while Qwen leans on larger language-specific pools. Together these results show that activation-level intervention alone can recover correct answers from cross-lingual reasoning failures.

Sources

Related papers