Cross Lingual Transfer in Tulu Legal Comprehension: Script-Dependent Improvement and RAG-Induced Knowledge Conflict
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Low-resource languages without an adequate training corpus often use a related, higher-resource language as a scaffold for comprehension. Still, there is a need to develop rigorous evaluation methods to identify when models fail in cross lingual low-resource environments. Using the legal domain as a backdrop, three models (Llama3, Hex-1, Sarvam) were tested on the ability to classify legal complaints written in a low resource Dravidian language (Tulu). Transliterating queries across Dravidian scripts allowed models to gain a preliminary understanding of speakers' complaints without the use of wide scale training, though the level of comprehension was heavily script dependent (with Kannada - another relatively low-resource language - producing the strongest positive trend). Retrieving from a corpus of Kannada legal papers across a RAG framework caused mixed results. Some models had a weak positive trend in comprehension under certain conditions, but when models failed, it was often across two axes: fact substitution (fixating on specific passage excerpts that skewed reasoning) and confabulation (hallucination that had no basis in either query or corpus). Within low resource domains, results identify the model's parsing of information and subsequent reasoning as the source of reasoning failure, rather than corpus contents. Script-dependent comprehension and RAG robustness also seem to travel together. This is further supported by the reasoning-trace analysis and a statistical-honesty framework deployed - techniques that are more broadly applicable to low-resource multilingual RAG evaluation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.
Builds on
12 of 26 references.
References · 12
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Entity-Based Knowledge Conflicts in Question Answeringcited by 356
- 2023Adaptive Chameleon or Stubborn Sloth: Revealing the Behavior of Large Language Models in Knowledge Conflictscited by 341
- 2024Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Surveycited by 283
- 2024Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Toolscited by 176
- 2024ClashEval: Quantifying the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal prior and external evidencecited by 113
- 2025Worse than Zero-shot? A Fact-Checking Dataset for Evaluating the Robustness of RAG Against Misleading Retrievalscited by 28
- 2024RAGGED: Towards Informed Design of Scalable and Stable RAG Systemscited by 24
- 2024Large Language Models Are Cross-Lingual Knowledge-Free Reasonerscited by 16
- 2025Towards Reliable Retrieval in RAG Systems for Large Legal Datasetscited by 12
- 2024A Tulu Resource for Machine Translationcited by 4
- 2026Making Large Language Models Speak Tulu: Structured Prompting for an Extremely Low-Resource Languagecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Testing Cross-Lingual Text Comprehension In LLMs Using Next Sentence Prediction
- 2025Rethinking Cross-lingual Gaps from a Statistical Viewpoint
- 2025Low-Resource, High-Impact: Building Corpora for Inclusive Language Technologies
- 2024Too Late to Train, Too Early To Use? A Study on Necessity and Viability of Low-Resource Bengali LLMs
- 2024Teaching LLMs to Abstain across Languages via Multilingual Feedback
- 2026Do Multilingual VLMs Reason Equally? A Cross-Lingual Visual Reasoning Audit for Indian Languages
- 2026IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia
- 2026Benchmarking Bengali Dialectal Bias: A Multi-Stage Framework Integrating RAG-Based Translation and Human-Augmented RLAIF