Papers › Exploring Design Choices for Building Language-Specific LLMs

Exploring Design Choices for Building Language-Specific LLMs

20 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.14670archive 2025-07-28

Atula Tejaswi, Nilesh Gupta, Eunsol Choi

Despite rapid progress in large language models (LLMs), their performance on a vast majority of languages remains unsatisfactory. In this paper, we study building language-specific LLMs by adapting monolingual and multilingual LLMs. We conduct systematic experiments on how design choices (base model selection, vocabulary extension, and continued pretraining) impact the adapted LLM, both in terms of efficiency (how many tokens are needed to encode the same amount of information) and end task performance. We find that (1) the initial performance of LLM does not always correlate with the final performance after the adaptation. Adapting an English-centric models can yield better results than adapting multilingual models despite their worse initial performance on low-resource languages. (2) Efficiency can easily improved with simple vocabulary extension and continued pretraining in most LLMs we study, and (3) The optimal adaptation method (choice of the base model, new vocabulary size, training data, initialization strategy) is highly language-dependent, and the simplest embedding initialization works well across various experimental settings. Together, our work lays foundations on efficiently building language-specific LLMs by adapting existing LLMs.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 7 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from atutej/token-language-adaptation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections