Hubness, Not Anisotropy, Drives Cross-Lingual Retrieval Asymmetry in Multilingual Embedding Models
For practitioners using multilingual embeddings for cross-lingual retrieval, this work identifies hubness as the key bottleneck and provides a simple fix (CSLS) to improve symmetry.
This paper investigates why cross-lingual retrieval is asymmetric in multilingual embedding models, finding that hubness (not anisotropy) is the dominant cause. Hub mass explains 49.5% of reciprocity variance, and using CSLS correction closes 63.5% of the reciprocity gap.
Multilingual embedding models are deployed under the assumption that cross-lingual retrieval is symmetric: if a query in language A retrieves its translation in language B, the reverse should also hold. In practice it does not. Using a parallel corpus of 6,518 idiomatic and proverbial expressions in English, Bangla, Hindi, and Arabic, embedded by five production-grade encoders (Gemini, Mistral, OpenAI-L, OpenAI-S, Qwen), we formalise this failure as a deficit in mutual nearest-neighbour reciprocity and test a single mechanistic claim: among the geometric pathologies of multilingual spaces, hubness, not anisotropy, centroid drift, or magnitude, is the dominant causal driver. Across five pre-registered experiments with falsification conditions specified in advance, hub mass dominates a joint regression on reciprocity (49.5% dominance share, 1.68x the next predictor; partial R^2 = 0.302 versus 0.003 for anisotropy), while a hub-aware score correction (CSLS) closes 63.5% of the worst-to-best reciprocity gap and yields a mean within-model effect size 130x larger than surgical hub-vector ablation. The latter contrast pinpoints the mechanism: hubness is a pathology of the similarity metric, not of individual hub vectors. We resolve the well-known anisotropy-hubness paradox by showing the two are statistically dissociable, and we recommend replacing cosine similarity with CSLS as the default retrieval metric for multilingual embedding pipelines.