Informational Antilocality and the Locality Bias in LLMs

Information locality, the tendency for syntactically related words to appear close together, shapes both human language processing and language model learning. While prior work has examined whether language models can acquire impossible languages, it remains unclear whether they can recover natural language from such input and what this reveals about their inductive biases. We address this by complementing learnability-based approaches with a reconstruction framework: fine-tuning GPT-2 models pre-trained on impossible languages to reconstruct natural English from three perturbation types. Our findings show that the recovered structures exhibit shorter dependency lengths than the original text, mirroring the locality preference observed in unconstrained language model generation and providing a quantitative signature of an architectural bias that learnability experiments alone do not reveal. Recovery difficulty increases with the degree of locality disruption. Structural recovery (dependency Triple F1) dissociates from surface recovery (Exact Match), while fluency dissociates from faithful reconstruction under global shuffling. Sentence length further modulates performance: longer sentences facilitate recovery when local structure is preserved but lead to complete collapse under global shuffling. Finally, recovery difficulty tracks learnability difficulty across perturbation types, suggesting that information locality is the shared constraint governing both.

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.

Modern LLMs continue to exhibit significant variance in behavior across languages, such as being able to recall factual information in some languages but not others. While typically studied as a problem to be mitigated, in this work, we propose leveraging this cross-lingual inconsistency as a tool for interpretability in mixture-of-experts (MoE) LLMs. Our knowledge localization framework contrasts routing for sets of languages where the model correctly recalls information from languages where it fails. This allows us to isolate model components that play a functional role in answering about a piece of knowledge. Our method proceeds in two stages: (1) querying the model with difficult factual questions across a diverse set of languages to generate "success" and "failure" activation buckets and then (2) applying a statistical contrastive analysis to the MoE router logits to identify experts important for knowledge. To validate the necessity of this small number of experts for answering a knowledge question, we deactivate them and re-ask the question. We find that despite only deactivating about 20 out of 6000 experts, the model no longer answers correctly in over 40% of cases. Generally, this method provides a realistic and scalable knowledge localization approach to address increasingly complex LLMs.