When Abundance Conceals Weakness: Knowledge Conflict in Multilingual Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) encode vast world knowledge across multiple languages, yet their internal beliefs are often unevenly distributed across linguistic spaces. When external evidence contradicts these language-dependent memories, models encounter \emph{cross-lingual knowledge conflict}, a phenomenon largely unexplored beyond English-centric settings. We introduce $\mathbf{\text{CLEAR}}$, a $\mathbf{\text{C}}$ross-$\mathbf{\text{L}}$ingual knowl$\mathbf{\text{E}}$dge conflict ev$\mathbf{\text{A}}$luation f$\mathbf{\text{R}}$amework that systematically examines how multilingual LLMs reconcile conflicting internal beliefs and multilingual external evidence. CLEAR decomposes conflict resolution into four progressive scenarios, from multilingual parametric elicitation to competitive multi-source cross-lingual induction, and systematically evaluates model behavior across two complementary QA benchmarks with distinct task characteristics. We construct multilingual versions of ConflictQA and ConflictingQA covering 10 typologically diverse languages and evaluate six representative LLMs. Our experiments reveal a task-dependent decision dichotomy. In reasoning-intensive tasks, conflict resolution is dominated by language resource abundance, with high-resource languages exerting stronger persuasive power. In contrast, for entity-centric factual conflicts, linguistic affinity, not resource scale, becomes decisive, allowing low-resource but linguistically aligned languages to outperform distant high-resource ones.