Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

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

Debajyoti Mazumder, Divyansh Pathak, Prashant Kodali, Aditya Joshi, Akshay Agarwal +1 morePublished May 28, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

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 $\sim$0.50, while code-mixed inputs substantially reduce this gap, bringing performance within $\sim$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.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
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.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: medium

THUNLP-MT/MT-Reading-List is the closest maintained adjacent implementation (Matches contextual method/domain keyword: machine translation). It is not paper-verified; validate algorithm and evaluation setup against the paper before trusting reported metrics. Community adoption signal: 2430 GitHub stars.

Reproduction risks
  • Adjacent implementations are not paper-verified
  • Recommended repository is adjacent and not paper-verified.

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Recently updated
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
1
Last push
Sep 2, 2026 (40d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No Docker setup
  • Low confidence match
Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
0
Last push
Oct 1, 2026 (11d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 11, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Framework baselines

Repositories and ecosystem

Closest related implementations

These are not paper-verified. Use them as reference points when no direct implementation is available.

  • THUNLP-MT/MT-Reading-List Adjacent · Confidence: Medium · 2,430 stars

    Matches contextual method/domain keyword: machine translation

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Machine translation

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Natural Language Processing

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.