Large language models (LLMs), relying on the Transformer architecture proposed by Vaswani et al. (2017) have shown remarkable effectiveness in many natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Minaee et al., 2024; Naveed et al., 2024). This has primarily been fuelled by increasingly large model parameterisations and training datasets, which are deemed essential according to neural scaling laws (Hernandez et al., 2022). On the other hand, with the consistent advancement of computational linguistics and NLP, open LLMs such as Llama2 (Touvron et al., 2023), Mistral (Jiang et al., 2023), Mixtral (Jiang et al., 2024), Falcon (Almazrouei et al., 2023) were released. The performance characteristics of these open models are comparable with their commercial counterparts. Such LLMs usually require massive datasets and considerable computational resources. For example, the pretraining of the Llama2 family was carried out using a 2 trillion token set and required 3311616 GPU hours (Touvron et al., 2023). In addition to direct applications, these models can be further trained for various downstream problems (Minaee et al., 2024), including regional language modelling.

For this application, it is important to note that open LLMs are usually trained with largely English texts (e.g. Touvron et al. (2023) indicate that > 89 % of the dataset, which was used to pretrain Llama2 consisted of English texts), resulting in a lack of performance for less common languages. Although commercial LLMs usually better support underrepresented languages, as a rule, they are exposed only via APIs, which do not provide access to the model’s parameters or its intermediate representations. Since there are ≈ 380 non-English languages with at least 1 million speakers (Eberhard et al., 2021), open regional LLMs constitute an important research direction and there have been multiple recent attempts to achieve efficient open LLMs, tailored for various regional languages (see Section 2, Table 1).

Regional LLM training is a challenging technical task not only computationally but also from the perspective of training data, which should reflect a rich structure of the language of interest, local cultural nuances, and domain-specific knowledge in multiple areas. Although this is only partially solved by massive multilingual datasets, such as CulturaX (Nguyen et al., 2023), it is still an important challenge to collect representative datasets in regional languages.

Open LLMs are also potentially useful for NLP research as their internal mechanism is fully transparent. There are also related applications outside the scope of NLP. For example, successful regional LLMs can significantly impact areas such as education, public services, healthcare, and cultural preservation.

This article describes Neurotechnology’s1¹

Neurotechnology (http://www.neurotechnology.com) is a Lithuanian company, specialising in artificial intelligence, biometrics, computer vision, and deep neural networks.

In this article, we investigate whether efficient Lithuanian LLMs can be achieved from Llama2 LLMs (which do not have the Lithuanian component, according to Touvron et al., 2023). In our opinion, for this research the Llama2 architecture is potentially advantageous against other similar open LLMs without Lithuanian language support (e.g. Mistral), since it allows experimentation with different model sizes, and its 13 billion parameter version nearly matches the performance of Mistral, as shown by Jiang et al. (2023).

We structure our paper by starting with a short review of the related work in Section 2. Section 3 describes the proposed LLMs and other contributed components, and Section 4 is devoted to an empirical evaluation. Finally, the conclusive Section 5 summarises the research conducted from different perspectives.

Llama2 model. Transformer-based Llama2 is available in different parameter sizes (e.g. 7, 13, and 70 billion parameters). The model is first pretrained using a 2 trillion token set, collected from public sources, and utilising a self-supervised autoregressive approach with cross-entropy loss. Afterward, it is fine-tuned using publicly available instruction datasets, augmented with human-annotated data, and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) methodologies (Touvron et al., 2023).

This model can support the maximum context length of the 4096 tokens. According to benchmarks, Llama2 generally performs on par with various open alternatives (e.g. Falcon (Almazrouei et al., 2023), Mistral (Jiang et al., 2023) and Mixtral (Jiang et al., 2024)), which also may be advantageous in specific scenarios. For example, Falcon is recognized for its strong performance at higher parameter counts, and Mistral/Mixtral are generally lighter-weight models that emphasize efficiency and specialized use cases. Compared to these models, Llama2 aims to maintain a balance between robust performance and scalability. As is common with large foundational models, it can be further successfully tuned for various downstream tasks, including regional language modelling.

LLMs for regional languages. Table 1 summarises LLMs tailored for common European languages, reflecting the recent contributions from the research and engineering community working in this direction. We include only those regional LLMs, that meet the following criteria:

According to Table 1, open LLMs are released for the majority of common European languages. Table 1 shows that Llama2 and Mistral are the leading architectures for open LLMs for regional European languages, and 7 billion parameter models are the most common. Table 1 also reveals that full parameter training is conducted in the majority of cases (19 cases from 20), instead of the parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) based approach. However, in some instances (2 cases from 20) regional LLMs were trained using PEFT methods, such as LoRA (Hu et al., 2022), which may result in less accurate models compared to full-parameter training, although with the lower computational costs. In addition, quite often only the model itself is published (11 out of 20 cases), without an accompanying citable document (e.g. technical report/peer-reviewed publication), or training and evaluation datasets. In our opinion, the lack of accompanying scientific documentation limits the potential usefulness of the released regional LLMs in various important aspects, including their reproducibility, empirical performance assessment, and establishing a connection to the existing related results.

Multilingual LLMs that support the Lithuanian language. Another way of achieving LLMs with regional language support is to train models for multiple languages simultaneously. Although this approach requires much more computational and data resources (for instance, EuroLLM was pretrained using 256 Nvidia H100 GPU’s and 4 trillion token set, as indicated by Martins et al., 2024), compared to learning models only for single language, recent open LLMs that support Lithuanian language are multilingual (e.g. Llama3.X (Grattafiori et al., 2024), and Gemma2 (Riviere and et al., 2024), and EuroLLM). Although these LLMs perform quite similarly on various benchmarks, there are applications in which some of these models are advantageous against other counterparts. For example, Gemma2 is potentially more suitable for general knowledge and reasoning tasks, Llama3.1 is efficient in coding and complex problem-solving tasks, and EuroLLM is optimised for European languages. All these multilingual models with Lithuanian language support were published in later stages or after our research and currently represent state-of-the-art (SOTA) in the field of open LLMs.

Proposed open LLMs and their training details. We trained the proposed LLMs (including tokenizers) from Llama2-7B and Llama2-13B, respectively (Table 2).

³

https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-2-7b

⁴

https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-2-13b

The training follows a standard two-step approach, consisting of autoregressive pretraining and supervised fine-tuning, which schematically is depicted in Fig. 1.

Autoregressive pretraining was performed on the Lithuanian component of the CulturaX dataset (Nguyen et al., 2023). It is the most intensive step computationally (Table 3), and corresponds to the integration of the Lithuanian language into the model. During this step, the cross-entropy loss for the next token prediction task was minimised (hence, no labelled data are required for pretraining). The complete set of model’s parameters was optimised (i.e. no PEFT was used). Figure 2 shows the loss during the pretraining process. From it we see that, although loss minimisation tends to saturate in the end, one may hypothesise that the learning would continue for more than one epoch.

Figure 6 (Appendix A) shows the distribution of the source of the Lithuanian component of the CulturaX dataset. From it we see that this dataset is quite rich in quantity. However, it is collected mainly from common web sites. Figure 7 (Appendix A) shows the distribution of the length of the record in tokens. In order to speed up pretraining, we reduced the context length to 2048 tokens (reflected in the peak near 2048, in Fig. 7 (Appendix A)). See Table 3 for more details on the pretraining process.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) explicitly guides the pretrained model toward task-specific outputs using labelled data. It is much less computationally intensive, since the model already has the Lithuanian language integrated (Table 3). We conducted SFT using the Alpaca dataset (Dubois et al., 2024), which has been translated into Lithuanian using the ChatGPT (gpt-4-1106-preview) and dataset (Neurotechnology, 2024). SFT tunes the LLMs to process formatted prompts "[INST] «SYS» {system_level_instruction} «/SYS»{instruction}[/INST]", where parameter system_level_instruction sets desired behaviour constraints (e.g. tone, response style), and parameter instruction specifies task (see the caption of Table 9 (Appendix A), for an example). SFT was conducted with the same parameters as in Table 3, except for the learning rate, which was set to 0.00001, and the context length was restored to 4096.

Hyperparameters, such as learning rate, warmup ratio, weight decay provided in Table 3 were selected according to Touvron et al. (2023) guidelines, but slightly adjusting the values provided to ensure faster and more stable loss minimisation. During pretraining we also observed gradient exploding effects. We mitigated them by tuning gradient accumulation steps (see Table 3).

Table 10 (Appendix A) provides text generation examples (pretrained models), and Table 9 (Appendix A) provides examples of answers to questions (pretrained and fine-tuned models). If not stated otherwise, in all experiments and benchmarks with the proposed LLMs, we used pretrained-only models, which corresponds to the common practice. The download links for the proposed LLMs are provided in Table 8 (Appendix A).

Proposed open Q/A dataset. This dataset was constructed from the ChatGPT (OpenAI et al., 2024) summarisations of a subset of Lithuanian Wikipedia using the procedure described below. First, the Lithuanian Wikipedia was downloaded and the titles of its pages were filtered with the following prompt: "I will provide a list of titles in Lithuanian language. From the list provide me the titles without any explanation which are directly or indirectly related with Lithuania except fauna and flora. List: {list}", where variable list represents a list of titles of all pages. After this filtering and manual check, the resulting list of Lithuanian Wikipedia pages represented by pair (title, text) was transformed into Q/A pairs using the prompt, returned by Algorithm 1.

The proposed dataset consists of 13,848 such pairs, and represents various facts about Lithuania and Lithuanian history. Note that it was not used in the pretraining process. Table 4 presents a set of examples from the proposed Q/A dataset, which can be accessed through the download links provided in Table 8 (Appendix A).

Proposed open translations of language understanding benchmarks. Language model evaluation harness (LMEH, Gao et al., 2023) are language understanding benchmarks which are created for the evaluation of LLMs across a wide range of tasks. LMEH includes a set of popular LLM evaluation benchmarks:

These benchmarks produce prompts consisting of question and answer options, and evaluate the accuracy of the responses of LLMs. The accuracy can be measured conveniently because of the structured prompt, which asks the LLM to select an option (e.g. "a", "b" or "c"). We translated the LMEH benchmarks into Lithuanian using GPT-4. The download links are provided in Table 8 (Appendix A).

We presented the first Llama2-based open LLMs tailored especially for the Lithuanian language, the accompanying Q/A dataset, and the translated LMEH benchmarks, which contribute to the standardisation of the evaluation of Lithuanian language models.

We also provided an overview of the existing LLMs for common European languages. It shows that most regional models follow the Llama2 or Mistral architecture. In addition, some authors do not train a full parameter set, but instead rely on PEFT approaches, which are less computationally demanding but also potentially less efficient in performance. On the other hand, PEFT methods partially allow one to retain the original parameter structure, and thereby they may be beneficial for achieving more efficient regional LLMs from the perspective of language understanding benchmarks. Our findings also reveal a lack of scientific documentation of the published open regional LLMs.

We evaluated the proposed LLMs based on perplexity and translated LMEH benchmarks. During the pretraining epoch, we evaluated average perplexities (measured with independent dataset) every 10 % of the training iterations. These benchmarks show that perplexity decreases consistently during pretraining, reflecting enhanced next-token prediction capabilities. The initial and final perplexities (17.4613 versus 3.8096 for LT-Llama2-7B and 13.8849 versus 3.4520 for LT-Llama2-13B) show the integration of the Lithuanian language component in the proposed Llama2 models. Using the same scheme, we also evaluated our models with the translated LMEH set, which includes a conceptually diverse set of language model benchmarks. The results of these experiments hint that the Lithuanian component of CulturaX may not be sufficiently rich for modern LLM architectures. Although we positively answer the question of whether efficient Lithuanian LLMs (which were non-existent at the beginning and during most of this research) can be achieved from Llama2 LLMs, which lack Lithuanian components, the latest open multilingual models (Llama3.1, Llama3.2, Gemma2, and EuroLLM) already have a strong Lithuanian component. According to our benchmarks, these open SOTA LLMs generally performed better than our models, however, the proposed LT-Llama2-13B was ranked average ( 4 / 8) in half of the LMEH benchmarks. This also leads to the hypothesis that by deriving Lithuanian LLMs from these recent models, one may obtain more efficient Lithuanian LLMs. In our opinion, the good performance of our model in the external benchmark by Kapočiūtė-Dzikienė et al. (2025) may be due to the fact that it was trained in a single language and the other LLMs were multilingual.

In the context of regional LLMs, the proposed models open up further research perspectives not only for NLP, but also for other directions, since LLM representations are potentially useful in various scenarios (e.g. sentiment analysis (Zhang et al., 2024), robotics (Kim et al., 2024)). The important limitations of our contribution are related to the rapid progress of LLM research, leading to the continuous emergence of more advanced models. In addition, we used automatically translated and generated data in the contributed components, which may also cause negative effects. To achieve stable loss minimisation during pretraining we faced and solved several challenges related to the selection of hyperparameters (learning rates, batch size, gradient accumulation steps). Our future work will include fully trained small language models tailored for Baltic languages and English.