mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating Cross-lingual Knowledge Consistency in Code-Mixed vis-a-vis Indian Languages using IndicKLAR

arXiv 2605.29637 ↗First posted 28 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models often exhibit a substantial gap between their performance in English and in lower-resourced languages on equivalent knowledge queries---a cross-lingual consistency issue that remains underexplored for Indian languages and their code-mixed counterparts. To study this gap, we introduce IndicKLAR, an Indic extension of the KLAR-CLC benchmark covering 18 of the 22 scheduled Indian languages. For 11 widely used language pairs, we additionally provide code-mixed variants. Both monolingual and code-mixed inputs verified by native speakers. This three-way alignment enables us to examine how knowledge recall consistency varies across English, code-mixed, and native Indian language inputs. Across nine open-weight models, we find that the accuracy gap between native-language and English inputs can reach ~0.50, while code-mixed inputs substantially reduce this gap, bringing performance within ~0.05 of English without any model-level intervention. Motivated by this finding, we evaluate several prompting strategies that differ in how explicitly language conversion is exposed: a two-stage translate-then-answer setup, a one-stage joint translation-and-answer prompt, and Translate-in-Thought (TinT)---a single-step strategy in which the model internally converts the input and outputs only the final answer. Across the native rightarrow code-mixed rightarrow English performance trajectory, we observe a consistent flip point---the transition from incorrect to correct prediction---between the native and code-mixed settings. Notably, this pattern holds both when the code-mixed representation is explicitly provided as input or when the model is prompted to convert internally using TinT.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.

Builds on

16 of 31 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  2. 2023Not All Languages Are Created Equal in LLMs: Improving Multilingual Capability by Cross-Lingual-Thought Promptingcited by 163
  3. 2023Cross-Lingual Consistency of Factual Knowledge in Multilingual Language Modelscited by 117
  4. 2023Do Multilingual Language Models Think Better in English?cited by 87
  5. 2024IndicLLMSuite: A Blueprint for Creating Pre-training and Fine-Tuning Datasets for Indian Languagescited by 52
  6. 2025Lost in Multilinguality: Dissecting Cross-lingual Factual Inconsistency in Transformer Language Modelscited by 43
  7. 2025How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge?cited by 29
  8. 2022Evaluating the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion of NLP Technology: A Case Study for Indian Languagescited by 20
  9. 2025MuBench: Assessment of Multilingual Capabilities of Large Language Models Across 61 Languagescited by 13
  10. 2024Paramanu: Compact and Competitive Monolingual Language Models for Low-Resource Morphologically Rich Indian Languagescited by 4
  11. 2025Understanding LLMs' Cross-Lingual Context Retrieval: How Good It Is And Where It Comes Fromcited by 4
  12. 2025On the Entity-Level Alignment in Crosslingual Consistencycited by 4
4 more
  1. 2025Found in Translation: Measuring Multilingual LLM Consistency as Simple as Translate then Evaluatecited by 3
  2. 2025Mind the (Language) Gap: Towards Probing Numerical and Cross-Lingual Limits of LVLMscited by 2
  3. 2026Do LLMs Need Inherent Reasoning Before Reinforcement Learning? A Study in Korean Self-Correctioncited by 1
  4. 2026Evaluating Contextually Mediated Factual Recall in Multilingual Large Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.