<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Continual Pre-Training for Cross-Lingual LLM Adaptation: Enhancing Japanese Language Capabilities · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2404.17790/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2404.17790/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Continual Pre-Training for Cross-Lingual LLM Adaptation: Enhancing Japanese Language Capabilities — mentioned by mcyc</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48100560</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2404.17790:48100560</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 20:56:30 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You are right about most tokenizers being heavily biased towards English, but the situation is not so bad for Portuguese. Here are some results on the Goldfish corpus [1] with a few different tokenizers. This measures #characters in corpus / #subwords in tokenized corpus. ``` Llama3 english, 0.216 portuguese, 0.285 italian, 0.287 greek, 0.592 ``` ``` Gemma4 english, 0.219 portuguese, 0.246 italian, 0.249 greek, 0.537 ``` ``` Kimi2.6 english, 0.214 portuguese, 0.310 italian, 0.308 greek, 0.716 ``` Portuguese is worse than English certainly, but it is on par with Italian (which I think has more…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2404.17790/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
