Language Bias under Conflicting Information in Multilingual LLMs

Robert Östling, Murathan Kurfalı
4/8/2026
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to contain biases in the process of integrating conflicting information when answering questions. Here we ask whether such biases also exist with respect to which language is used for each conflicting piece of information. To answer this question, we extend the conflicting needles in a haystack paradigm to a multilingual setting and perform a comprehensive set of evaluations with naturalistic news domain data in five different languages, for a range of multilingual LLMs of different sizes. We find that all LLMs tested, including GPT-5.2, ignore the conflict and confidently assert only one of the possible answers in the large majority of cases. Furthermore, there is a consistent bias across models in which languages are preferred, with a general bias against Russian and, for the longest context lengths, in favor of Chinese. Both of these patterns are consistent between models trained inside and outside of mainland China, though somewhat stronger in the former category.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{stling2026language,
  title  = {Language Bias under Conflicting Information in Multilingual LLMs},
  author = {Robert Östling and Murathan Kurfalı},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2604.07123},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07123v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2604.07123.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2604.07123)

Discussion