Multilingual Long-Form Speech Instruction Following: KIT's Submission to IWSLT 2026

With the advent of Large Language Models, single-task and token-based multi-task models have evolved into instruction-based systems that infer task and target language implicitly from natural language prompts. This trend is reflected in IWSLT's Instruction Following Track, which this year introduced new tasks including an unknown surprise task, posing a genuine challenge against overfitting to known tasks. We present KIT's submission to the Long and Short Instruction Following tracks in the unconstrained setting. Our approach combines a general data augmentation pipeline that converts short-form corpora into long-form training data through segment concatenation, LLM-based label generation, and cross-lingual translation, yielding over 1M instances across six tasks and four languages. We further show that likelihood-based re-ranking, while highly effective for ASR, systematically degrades semantic tasks by spuriously selecting candidates generated from segmented audio processing rather than holistic long-form inference, a failure mode resolved by combining likelihood with Minimum Bayes Risk decoding.

How do Multimodal Foundation Models Encode Text and Speech? An Analysis of Cross-Lingual and Cross-Modal Representations

Multimodal foundation models aim to create a unified representation space that abstracts away from surface features like language syntax or modality differences. To investigate this, we study the internal representations of three recent models, analyzing the model activations from semantically equivalent sentences across languages in the text and speech modalities. Our findings reveal that: 1) Cross-modal representations converge over model layers, except in the initial layers specialized at text and speech processing. 2) Length adaptation is crucial for reducing the cross-modal gap between text and speech, although current approaches' effectiveness is primarily limited to high-resource languages. 3) Speech exhibits larger cross-lingual differences than text. 4) For models not explicitly trained for modality-agnostic representations, the modality gap is more prominent than the language gap.