Language Specific Knowledge: Do Models Know Better in X than in English?

Large language models are increasingly used to answer culturally grounded questions across languages, yet it remains unclear whether local cultural knowledge is better accessed through English or the local language. Existing evaluations face two key limitations: many rely on parallel template-based questions that may not reflect how cultural knowledge naturally appears, and raw accuracy conflates general language proficiency with language-conditioned knowledge access. We address these issues with a controlled framework built on real-world cultural questions collected from regional benchmarks and local sources. By crossing question type (culture-agnostic vs. culture-specific) with query language (English vs. local language), and estimating ability with a shared 1PL item response theory model, we separate proficiency from localized knowledge access. Across 13 locales and roughly 80 models, we find a consistent English advantage on culture-agnostic questions, indicating stronger English proficiency. However, after accounting for this proficiency gap, local languages show a positive knowledge-access advantage in nearly all locale-model settings. This advantage is often masked in raw accuracy but becomes more visible for frontier, regionally aligned, or language-adapted models. Our results suggest that weaker local-language performance does not necessarily imply weaker cultural knowledge; rather, local cultural knowledge may be more accessible through the local language but hidden by limited language proficiency.

Large Language Models increasingly serve as interfaces for knowledge-intensive information seeking tasks across languages by synthesizing multilingual evidence. Prior work has shown that they often exhibit query-language preference -- the tendency to favor sources written in the language of the query -- but has largely examined this behavior in settings where equivalent knowledge is available across languages. However, this bias becomes consequential when sources in different languages provide incomplete or inconsistent accounts of the same fact, since the information users receive then depends on the sources a model selects to use. To characterize query-language preference under such cross-lingual knowledge disparities, we introduce Waldo, a multilingual Question-Answering (QA) benchmark constructed from Wikipedia. Waldo contains 12K QA pairs targeting knowledge gaps, where a fact is available in one language but absent in another, and knowledge conflicts, where language editions provide conflicting versions of the same fact. Evaluating eight models across five languages, we find that when one language edition merely lacks the relevant fact, models generally use evidence from the other language regardless of the query language. Under conflicting accounts, however, model responses strongly align with the document in the query language, causing semantically equivalent queries to elicit different accounts depending on the user's language. Finally, we explore two different approaches that could mitigate this preference under knowledge conflicts: a mechanistic intervention that ablates attention heads associated with query-language preference, and LoRA-based training, which reduces the preference gap by up to 61.5%.

Multilingual large language models (LLMs) have minimized the fluency gap between languages. This advancement, however, exposes models to the risk of biased behavior, as knowledge and norms may propagate across languages. In this work, we aim to quantify models' inter- and intra-lingual biases, via their ability to answer locale-ambiguous questions. To this end, we present LocQA, a test set containing 2,156 questions in 12 languages, referring to various locale-dependent facts such as laws, dates, and measurements. The questions do not contain indications of the locales they relate to, other than the querying language itself. LLMs' responses to LocQA locale-ambiguous questions thus reveal models' implicit priors. We used LocQA to evaluate 32 models, and detected two types of structural biases. Inter-lingually, we show a global bias towards answers relevant to the US-locale, even when models are asked in languages other than English. Moreover, we discovered that this global bias is exacerbated in models that underwent instruction tuning, compared to their base counterparts. Intra-lingually, we show that when multiple locales are relevant for the same language, models act as demographic probability engines, prioritizing locales with larger populations. Taken together, insights from LocQA may help in shaping LLMs' desired local behavior, and in quantifying the impact of various training phases on different kinds of biases.