Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

How and Where to Translate? The Impact of Translation Strategies in Cross-lingual LLM Prompting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In multilingual RAG, the best prompt translation strategy depends on the model and the source language: translating the task framing often helps, while forcing low-resource language generation usually hurts.

desk verdict Useful practical comparison of prompt translation strategies for RAG intent classification, but the main claim about candidate translation is confounded by an exact-match metric and needs a lenient-match reanalysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22923 v1 pith:KHB2RJ6T submitted 2025-07-21 cs.CL cs.AI

Aman Gupta , Yingying Zhuang , Zhou Yu , Ziji Zhang , Anurag Beniwal This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords cross-lingualpromptingprompttranslationstrategiesmultilingualretrieval-augmentedgenerationintentclassificationlow-resourcelanguagesLLMre-rankingRAG
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In multilingual retrieval-augmented generation, the knowledge base is often in English while the user speaks another language, so the LLM receives a mixed-language prompt. This paper asks which parts of that prompt should be pre-translated into the user's language before the LLM picks an intent from a retrieved candidate list. Testing six translation strategies on French (high-resource) and Hindi (low-resource) across five models, it finds that the best strategy is not universal: translating the task identity and rules into the source language often improves accuracy, while translating the candidate list—which forces the model to generate in the source language—usually hurts, especially for Hindi. The conclusion is that multilingual RAG systems should choose where to translate per model and per language rather than committing to an all-English or all-translated prompt.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a four-component decomposition of the RAG prompt—identity statement, task rules, candidate list, and user utterance—and by six translation strategies (Baseline, Candidates, Identity, Rules, Identity & Rules, All) that toggle which static components are translated into the source language while the utterance stays in the source language. This design isolates the effect of changing the language of task framing versus the language of the required output, and it is what allows the paper to attribute gains to 'where to translate' rather than to overall prompt language.

What would settle it

A concrete experiment: reproduce the comparison on the same intent-classification task but with a retrieval step that has realistic, imperfect recall, or with a model that generates Hindi fluently; if the relative ordering of the six strategies flips, the paper's central conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal prompt translation strategy varies greatly with both the inference model and the source language, and that selective translation is a real lever for cross-lingual intent classification. In the paper's own framing, for a low-resource language lexically distant from English such as Hindi, it is better to keep generation in English unless the task requires Hindi output; for a high-resource language such as French, generation in the source language can be beneficial depending on the model. Across models, translating the identity statement and the task rules into the source language frequently yields improvements (notably for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and BLOOMZ), whereas translating the candidate list and thereby forcing source-language generation consistently degrades performance except for the BLOOMZ models on French.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that the correct intent is always present in the retrieved candidate list (perfect recall), so none of the measured translation effects is tested against the possibility that real retrieval may omit the right answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multilingual RAG deployments should select the prompt translation strategy on a per-model, per-language basis instead of using a fixed all-English or all-localized template.
  • Translating only the task framing (identity and rules) into the user's language is a cheap offline optimization that can raise intent-classification accuracy without forcing the model to generate in a weaker language.
  • For low-resource, lexically distant languages such as Hindi, candidate lists and outputs should stay in English unless the product genuinely requires localized responses.
  • Models trained with explicit multilingual objectives respond better to source-language prompt components, while English-centric models degrade when any component is translated.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'generation language is the bottleneck' pattern suggests that tasks requiring long or creative source-language output (for example, summarization or open-ended QA) will penalize translation-to-source more heavily than label-copying classification, a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The component-level gains imply a simple adaptive policy: detect the language of the utterance and translate only identity and rules for that language, leaving retrieval and generation in English, which can be adopted with no runtime cost since static prompt parts can be pre-translated offline.
  • Because translation quality is known to be weaker for low-resource languages, some of the Hindi degradation might come from translation errors rather than from generation weakness; using professional translations in a controlled comparison would separate these effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how translating different components of an LLM prompt (identity statement, task rules, candidate list) into the source language affects accuracy on a multilingual RAG-based intent classification task. Experiments cover French and Hindi as source languages and five multilingual LLMs, comparing six translation strategies against an all-English baseline. Accuracy is measured by exact verbatim match of the correct candidate in the model response. The main finding is that no single strategy works best across models and languages: translating identity and rules into the source language often helps, while translating candidates and thereby forcing source-language generation usually hurts, especially for Hindi. The paper concludes that optimal prompt translation strategy depends on the language and the inference model.

Significance. If the empirical pattern holds, the paper provides practically useful guidance for deploying multilingual RAG systems: rather than applying a single all-English or all-translated prompt, practitioners should select which prompt components to translate based on the target language and model. The study is systematic in covering six strategies, two typologically different languages, and five models, and it addresses a realistic dialogue-intent-classification setup. The main strengths are the clear decomposition of the prompt into components and the inclusion of low-resource (Hindi) and high-resource (French) settings. However, the central quantitative claims are currently supported only by aggregate accuracy differences without uncertainty quantification, and the evaluation metric conflates semantic selection with verbatim copying ability. These issues need to be addressed before the recommendations can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The exact-match metric confounds semantic correctness with verbatim copying. In configurations C and A the candidate list is in the source language, so the model must reproduce a Hindi or French string exactly to be scored correct. Section 4 itself attributes low baselines partly to 'LLMs struggle with verbatim copying portions of the user prompt,' yet the analysis does not separate copy failures from failures to select the correct intent. Consequently, the consistently negative C/A results for Hindi (e.g., Qwen2.5 -12.8%, Mistral-Nemo -13.0%) may be artifacts of transcription or transliteration errors rather than evidence that translated candidates are semantically harmful. This is load-bearing for the paper's claim that translating candidates generally degrades performance, especially for Hindi. The authors should add a lenient evaluation—for example, normalized string matching, semantic similarity to the correct candidate, or manual inspection of a sample—and report how many C/A errors are copy failures versus wrong-intent selections.
  2. [Section 3.1] The evaluation assumes full recall from the retrieval model: the correct intent is always manually added to the candidate list. In a production RAG system, retrieval may miss the correct intent, and no prompt translation strategy can recover from that. The paper presents the candidate-translation results as guidance for real-world multilingual RAG deployments, but the full-recall setup removes exactly the retrieval failures that would be most relevant in practice. The authors should either relax this assumption in a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the number of candidates or simulating retrieval misses) or clearly scope the conclusions to the reranking stage only, with an explicit discussion of how retrieval errors might interact with translation strategy.
  3. [Table 2] Reported differences lack uncertainty quantification. Many of the improvements that drive the positive recommendations are small in absolute terms (e.g., BLOOMZ-7b1 Hindi I +0.3%, R +3.2%; BLOOMZ-7b1-mt Hindi I +1.9%, R +2.3%; several French I/R values are in the 1-4% range), and there are no standard errors, confidence intervals, or significance tests across the 6,000 utterances per language. Given that 1-3% differences can easily arise from sampling noise in this setting, the claim that 'translating the identity statement and rules into the source language often yields performance improvements' is not yet statistically supported. The authors should add bootstrap confidence intervals or per-item paired significance tests, and ideally report absolute accuracy alongside relative changes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text says product and service names were 'denonymized' to prevent identification; this appears to be a typo for 'anonymized' or 'de-identified.' Please clarify.
  2. [Figure 1] The groundtruth response is described as the utterance 'User wants to set a reminder or alarm for a future event,' but that is an English candidate description, not the French speaker utterance. Clarify that the expected output is the exact text of the chosen candidate description, which may be in a different language from the utterance.
  3. [Table 2] Relative percentage changes are difficult to interpret when baselines differ widely across models and languages (e.g., BLOOMZ French baseline is 0.186, so +13.4% corresponds to only +2.5 absolute points). Presenting absolute accuracy for all configurations, or both absolute and relative values, would make the magnitude of effects clearer.
  4. [Section 3.4] Please provide exact model identifiers and versions (e.g., HuggingFace model IDs) for Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, BLOOMZ-7b1, Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407, and BLOOMZ-7b1-mt, since performance can vary with checkpoint versions.
  5. [Section 3.2] The statement that 'the conclusions drawn from our experiments remain valid' after anonymization is asserted but not demonstrated. At minimum, describe what was anonymized and whether the label distribution or utterance difficulty changed after anonymization, since this affects the generalizability of the accuracy numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the translation-strategy comparison is a direct empirical A/B study, and the self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim that optimal prompt translation strategy varies by model and source language is supported by direct comparisons of six prompt configurations (Table 1) across five models and two languages (Table 2). No parameter is fitted to the evaluation data and then reported as a prediction; the recommendation of an 'optimized prompting strategy' is a post-hoc reading of observed accuracies, not a quantity derived from its own definition. The two self-citations ([27], [29]) are used to motivate the RAG setup and the cross-lingual retrieval scenario, but the experimental comparison does not use their outputs as inputs and would stand without them. The exact-match metric is applied uniformly to all configurations, so comparing configurations is not tautological. A real measurement-validity concern is that in candidate-translated conditions (C and A) the model must reproduce Hindi or French candidate text verbatim, and the paper itself notes 'LLMs struggle with verbatim copying portions of the user prompt'; failures to copy may be scored as classification errors, potentially distorting the Hindi C/A results. This is a substantive empirical limitation, not a circularity, because the outcome variable is not defined in terms of the translation-strategy manipulation and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The full-recall simplification is likewise a scope limitation that affects external validity, not a circular step. The translation step uses an external LLM with manual checks and is not tuned on the evaluation set, further supporting the independence of the observed comparisons from the paper's own prior results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and does not introduce fitted parameters or new entities. It rests on the full-recall setup, assumed translation quality, and exact-match scoring.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Full recall: the correct intent is always present in the candidate list.
    Section 3.1: 'We enforce full recall from the retrieval model, that is, the correct intent is always present in the candidates.' This makes the task easier than production RAG and means the LLM can always succeed by copying if it can identify the correct candidate.
  • domain assumption LLM translation quality is sufficient for the study.
    Section 3.3: 'We use a LLM for translation and manually inspect a subset to ensure good translation quality.' No quantitative translation evaluation is reported, so unrecognized translation errors could affect results.
  • domain assumption Single deterministic runs represent stable model behavior.
    Section 3.5: temperature 0.1, top-p 0.7, one run per condition; no repeated sampling or variance estimation.
  • domain assumption Verbatim exact-match is an appropriate accuracy metric.
    Section 3.1: a response is accurate only if it contains the exact candidate text and nothing else, despite the paper's own observation that LLMs struggle with verbatim copying ([23]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How and Where to Translate? The Impact of Translation Strategies in Cross-lingual LLM Prompting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHB2RJ6T

@misc{pith2026250722923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How and Where to Translate? The Impact of Translation Strategies in Cross-lingual LLM Prompting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHB2RJ6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22923}
}
read the original abstract

Despite advances in the multilingual capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance varies substantially across different languages and tasks. In multilingual retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based systems, knowledge bases (KB) are often shared from high-resource languages (such as English) to low-resource ones, resulting in retrieved information from the KB being in a different language than the rest of the context. In such scenarios, two common practices are pre-translation to create a mono-lingual prompt and cross-lingual prompting for direct inference. However, the impact of these choices remains unclear. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the impact of different prompt translation strategies for classification tasks with RAG-enhanced LLMs in multilingual systems. Experimental results show that an optimized prompting strategy can significantly improve knowledge sharing across languages, therefore improve the performance on the downstream classification task. The findings advocate for a broader utilization of multilingual resource sharing and cross-lingual prompt optimization for non-English languages, especially the low-resource ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The above figure presents the prompt we use for in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Introducing the next generation of Claude. https://www.anthropic.com/ news/claude-3-family. Accessed: 2025-04-20

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Ashish Sunil Agrawal, Barah Fazili, and Preethi Jyothi. 2024. Translation Er- rors Significantly Impact Low-Resource Languages in Cross-Lingual Learning. arXiv:2402.02080 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02080

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Kabir Ahuja, Harshita Diddee, Rishav Hada, Millicent Ochieng, Krithika Ramesh, Prachi Jain, Akshay Nambi, Tanuja Ganu, Sameer Segal, Maxamed Axmed, et al. 2023. Mega: Multilingual evaluation of generative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12528 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Mistral AI and NVIDIA. 2024. Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407: A 12B Parameter Multilingual LLM. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Nicholas Ampazis. 2024. Improving rag quality for large language models with topic-enhanced reranking. InIFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. Springer, 74–87

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gaurav Arora, Shreya Jain, and Srujana Merugu. 2024. Intent Detection in the Age of LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track , Franck Dernoncourt, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, and Anastasia Shimorina (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Miami, Florida, US, 1559–1570. doi:10.18...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-industry 2024

  7. [7]

    Martin Juan José Bucher and Marco Martini. 2024. Fine-Tuned’Small’LLMs (Still) Significantly Outperform Zero-Shot Generative AI Models in Text Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08660 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Samuel Cahyawijaya, Holy Lovenia, and Pascale Fung. 2024. LLMs Are Few- Shot In-Context Low-Resource Language Learners. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard (Eds.). Association f...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.24 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Team Cohere. 2025. Command A: An Enterprise-Ready Large Language Model. arXiv:2504.00698 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00698

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, and et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv:2407.21783 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sunkyoung Kim, Dayeon Ki, Yireun Kim, and Jinsik Lee. 2024. Cross-lingual QA: A Key to Unlocking In-context Cross-lingual Performance. arXiv:2305.15233 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15233

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient Mem- ory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Viet Dac Lai, Nghia Ngo, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Hieu Man, Franck Dernon- court, Trung Bui, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2023. ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learning. In Findings of the Association for Computationa...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Zihao Li, Yucheng Shi, Zirui Liu, Fan Yang, Ninghao Liu, and Mengnan Du. 2024. Quantifying multilingual performance of large language models across languages. arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2404

    2024

  7. [15]

    Chaoqun Liu, Wenxuan Zhang, Yiran Zhao, Anh Tuan Luu, and Lidong Bing. 2025. Is Translation All You Need? A Study on Solving Multilingual Tasks with Large Language Models. arXiv:2403.10258 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10258

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Junhua Liu, Tan Yong Keat, Bin Fu, and Kwan Hui Lim. 2024. LARA: Linguistic- Adaptive Retrieval-Augmentation for Multi-Turn Intent Classification. InProceed- ings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, Franck Dernoncourt, Da...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Itai Mondshine, Tzuf Paz-Argaman, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2025. Beyond English: The Impact of Prompt Translation Strategies across Languages and Tasks in Multilingual LLMs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu ...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Niklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts, Stella Biderman, Teven Le Scao, M Saiful Bari, Sheng Shen, Zheng-Xin Yong, Hailey Schoelkopf, et al. 2022. Crosslingual generalization through multitask finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01786 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ryan, Alan Ritter, and Wei Xu

    Tarek Naous, Michael J. Ryan, Alan Ritter, and Wei Xu. 2024. Having Beer after Prayer? Measuring Cultural Bias in Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.14456 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14456

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gabriel Nicholas and Aliya Bhatia. 2023. Lost in translation: large language models in non-English content analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07377 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Freda Shi, Mirac Suzgun, Markus Freitag, Xuezhi Wang, Suraj Srivats, Soroush Vosoughi, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03057 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Qwen Team. 2024. Qwen2.5: A Party of Foundation Models. https://qwenlm. github.io/blog/qwen2.5/

    2024

  15. [23]

    Noah Wang, Feiyu Duan, Yibo Zhang, Wangchunshu Zhou, Ke Xu, Wenhao Huang, and Jie Fu. 2024. PositionID: LLMs can Control Lengths, Copy and Paste with Explicit Positional Awareness. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 , Yaser Al-Onaizan, M...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Zhaofeng Wu, Xinyan Velocity Yu, Dani Yogatama, Jiasen Lu, and Yoon Kim. 2025. The Semantic Hub Hypothesis: Language Models Share Semantic Representations Across Languages and Modalities. arXiv:2411.04986 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2411.04986

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kai Yin, Chengkai Liu, Ali Mostafavi, and Xia Hu. 2024. Crisissense-llm: Instruc- tion fine-tuned large language model for multi-label social media text classifica- tion in disaster informatics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15477 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yazhou Zhang, Mengyao Wang, Chenyu Ren, Qiuchi Li, Prayag Tiwari, Benyou Wang, and Jing Qin. 2024. Pushing the limit of LLM capacity for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07470 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ziji Zhang, Michael Yang, Zhiyu Chen, Yingying Zhuang, Shu-Ting Pi, Qun Liu, Rajashekar Maragoud, Vy Nguyen, and Anurag Beniwal. 2025. REIC: RAG- Enhanced Intent Classification at Scale. arXiv:2506.00210 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2506.00210

    2025

  20. [28]

    Jun Zhao, Zhihao Zhang, Luhui Gao, Qi Zhang, Tao Gui, and Xuanjing Huang

  21. [29]

    Yingying Zhuang, Aman Gupta, and Anurag Beniwal. 2025. Multilingual Infor- mation Retrieval with a Monolingual Knowledge Base. arXiv:2506.02527 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02527

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yingying Zhuang, Yichao Lu, and Simi Wang. 2021. Weakly Supervised Extractive Summarization with Attention. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue , Haizhou Li, Gina-Anne Levow, Zhou Yu, Chitralekha Gupta, Berrak Sisma...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Yingying Zhuang, Jiecheng Song, Narayanan Sadagopan, and Anurag Beniwal

  24. [2023]

    In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23 Companion)

    Self-supervised Pre-training and Semi-supervised Learning for Extractive Dialog Summarization. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23 Companion) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1069–1076. doi:10.1145/3543873.3587680

    2023

  25. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01055 (2024)

    Llama beyond english: An empirical study on language capability transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01055 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.