Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Merge and Conquer: Instructing Multilingual Models by Adding Target Language Weights

Eneko Valero, Maria Ribalta i Albado, Oscar Sainz, Naiara Perez, German Rigau · Mar 30, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages. Existing adaptation approaches, such as continual pre-training, demand significant computational resources. In the case of instructed models, high-quality instruction data is also required, both of which are often inaccessible for low-resource language communities. Under these constraints, model merging offers a lightweight alternative, but its potential in low-resource contexts has not been systematically explored. In this work, we explore whether it is possible to transfer language knowledge to an instruction-tuned LLM by merging it with a language-specific base model, thereby eliminating the need of language-specific instructions and repeated fine-tuning processes whenever stronger instructed variants become available. Through experiments covering four Iberian languages (Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish) and two model families, we show that merging enables effective instruction following behavior in new languages and even supports multilingual capability through the combination of multiple language-specific models. Our results indicate that model merging is a viable and efficient alternative to traditional adaptation methods for low-resource languages, achieving competitive performance while greatly reducing computational cost.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 20%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Multilingual

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) remain heavily centered on English, with limited performance in low-resource languages.
  • Existing adaptation approaches, such as continual pre-training, demand significant computational resources.
  • In the case of instructed models, high-quality instruction data is also required, both of which are often inaccessible for low-resource language communities.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Through experiments covering four Iberian languages (Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish) and two model families, we show that merging enables effective instruction following behavior in new languages and even supports multilingual…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.