SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2603.17070

Large Reasoning Models Struggle to Transfer Parametric Knowledge Across Scripts

Abstract

In this work, we analyze shortcomings in cross-lingual knowledge transfer in large, modern reasoning LLMs. We demonstrate that the perceived gap in knowledge transfer is primarily a script barrier. First, we conduct an observational data analysis on the performance of thinking models on two datasets with local knowledge from around the world, ECLeKTic and MultiLoKo. Our regression analysis shows that script match - not language or family - is the primary predictor of knowledge transfer failure once model capability and question difficulty are accounted for. We further this finding by providing the LLMs with the key entities of the questions in their source language and find that this disproportionately improves cross-script questions. We then posit that these LLMs could be reasoning better at test-time. To evaluate this, we develop a synthetic generation pipeline to design SFT samples to encourage the model to better reason about transliteration ambiguities when trying to fetch parametric knowledge at inference-time. We show that teaching two models to reason better reduces the cross-script transfer gap. As a result, we conclude that there is potential to improve cross-lingual parametric knowledge transfer during post-training.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Lucas Bandarkar, Alan Ansell, Trevor Cohn. 2026-08-28. Large Reasoning Models Struggle to Transfer Parametric Knowledge Across Scripts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17070

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL