Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong multilingual capabilities, yet remain fundamentally constrained by the severe imbalance in global language resources. While over 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, only a small subset (fewer than 100) has sufficient digital presence to meaningfully influence modern LLM training. This disparity leads to systematic underperformance, cultural misalignment, and limited accessibility for speakers of low-resource and extreme-low-resource languages. To address this gap, we introduce Bring Your Own Language (BYOL), a unified framework for scalable, language-aware LLM development tailored to each language's digital footprint. BYOL begins with a language resource classification that maps languages into four tiers (Extreme-Low, Low, Mid, High) using curated web-scale corpora, and uses this classification to select the appropriate integration pathway. For low-resource languages, we propose a full-stack data refinement and expansion pipeline that combines corpus cleaning, synthetic text generation, continual pretraining, and supervised finetuning. Applied to Chichewa and Maori, this pipeline yields language-specific LLMs that achieve approximately 12 percent average improvement over strong multilingual baselines across 12 benchmarks, while preserving English and multilingual capabilities via weight-space model merging. For extreme-low-resource languages, we introduce a translation-mediated inclusion pathway, and show on Inuktitut that a tailored machine translation system improves over a commercial baseline by 4 BLEU, enabling high-accuracy LLM access when direct language modeling is infeasible. Finally, we release human-translated versions of the Global MMLU-Lite benchmark in Chichewa, Maori, and Inuktitut, and make our codebase and models publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/byol .

We present Jupiter-N, a hybrid reasoning model post-trained from Nemotron 3 Super, a fully open-source 120 billion parameter LLM. We target three objectives: (1) agentic capability via uncertainty-curated trajectories; (2) UK cultural alignment via synthetic data grounded in cultural norms; and (3) Welsh language support via parallel corpora and LLM-translated Welsh conversations. Our data curation strategy carefully preserves the base model's capabilities: using our Forget-Me-Not framework, we mix on-policy synthetic replay with off-policy task data to mitigate catastrophic forgetting, and include a mixture of reasoning and non-reasoning traces to maintain Nemotron's hybrid reasoning ability. Jupiter-N achieves standout gains over Nemotron in Welsh (+18 on ARC-Easy, +5.25 on MMLU-Lite), terminal-use (+9.1 on Terminal Bench 2) and instruction following (+4.4 on IFBench), while retaining the base model capabilities. We frame this work as a reproducible template for sovereign post-training: substituting cultural knowledge, institutional corpora, and target languages produces an equivalent pipeline for any country. All model weights and all post-training datasets are publicly released under open licences.

This work presents the first systematic investigation of speech bias in multilingual MLLMs. We construct and release the BiasInEar dataset, a speech-augmented benchmark based on Global MMLU Lite, spanning English, Chinese, and Korean, balanced by gender and accent, and totaling 70.8 hours (approx4,249 minutes) of speech with 11,200 questions. Using four complementary metrics (accuracy, entropy, APES, and Fleiss' κ), we evaluate nine representative models under linguistic (language and accent), demographic (gender), and structural (option order) perturbations. Our findings reveal that MLLMs are relatively robust to demographic factors but highly sensitive to language and option order, suggesting that speech can amplify existing structural biases. Moreover, architectural design and reasoning strategy substantially affect robustness across languages. Overall, this study establishes a unified framework for assessing fairness and robustness in speech-integrated LLMs, bridging the gap between text- and speech-based evaluation. The resources can be found at https://github.com/ntunlplab/BiasInEar.

Large language models (LLMs) targeting different deployment scales and sizes are currently produced by training each variant from scratch; this is extremely compute-intensive. In this paper, we investigate if pruning an existing LLM and then re-training it with a fraction (<3%) of the original training data can be a suitable alternative to repeated, full retraining. To this end, we develop a set of practical and effective compression best practices for LLMs that combine depth, width, attention and MLP pruning with knowledge distillation-based retraining; we arrive at these best practices through a detailed empirical exploration of pruning strategies for each axis, methods to combine axes, distillation strategies, and search techniques for arriving at optimal compressed architectures. We use this guide to compress the Nemotron-4 family of LLMs by a factor of 2-4x, and compare their performance to similarly-sized models on a variety of language modeling tasks. Deriving 8B and 4B models from an already pretrained 15B model using our approach requires up to 40x fewer training tokens per model compared to training from scratch; this results in compute cost savings of 1.8x for training the full model family (15B, 8B, and 4B). Minitron models exhibit up to a 16% improvement in MMLU scores compared to training from scratch, perform comparably to other community models such as Mistral 7B, Gemma 7B and Llama-3 8B, and outperform state-of-the-art compression techniques from the literature. We have open-sourced Minitron model weights on Huggingface, with corresponding supplementary material including example code available on GitHub.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale (sim7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.