Multilingual encoder-based language models are widely used for code-mixed analysis, yet their internal representations of code-mixed inputs—and their relationship to the constituent languages—remain poorly understood. Using Hindi–English as a case study, we construct a unified trilingual corpus of parallel English, Hindi (Devanagari), and Romanized code-mixed sentences. We then probe cross-lingual representation alignment in standard multilingual encoders and their code-mix-adapted variants using CKA, token-level saliency, and entropy-based uncertainty analysis. We find that while standard models align English and Hindi well, code-mixed inputs remain loosely connected to either language — and that continued pre-training on code-mixed data improves English–code-mixed alignment at the cost of English–Hindi alignment. Interpretability analyses further reveal a clear asymmetry: models process code-mixed text through an English-dominant semantic subspace, while native-script Hindi provides complementary signals that reduce representational uncertainty. Motivated by these findings, we introduce a trilingual post-training alignment objective that brings code-mixed representations closer to both constituent languages simultaneously, yielding more balanced cross-lingual alignment and downstream gains on sentiment analysis and hate speech detection — showing that grounding code-mixed representations in their constituent languages meaningfully helps cross-lingual understanding. Code is available at: https://github.com/debajyotimaz/tri_align_EMNLP_2026.

Large language models often exhibit a substantial gap between their performance in English and in lower-resourced languages on equivalent knowledge queries—a cross-lingual consistency issue that remains underexplored for Indian languages and their code-mixed counterparts. To study this gap, we introduce IndicKLAR, an Indic extension of the KLAR-CLC benchmark covering 18 of the 22 scheduled Indian languages. For 11 widely used language pairs, we additionally provide code-mixed variants. Both monolingual and code-mixed inputs verified by native speakers. This three-way alignment enables us to examine how knowledge recall consistency varies across English, code-mixed, and native Indian language inputs. Across nine open-weight models, we find that the accuracy gap between native-language and English inputs can reach ∼0.50, while code-mixed inputs substantially reduce this gap, bringing performance within ∼0.05 of English without any model-level intervention. Motivated by this finding, we evaluate several prompting strategies that differ in how explicitly language conversion is exposed: a two-stage translate-then-answer setup, a one-stage joint translation-and-answer prompt, and Translate-in-Thought (TinT)—a single-step strategy in which the model internally converts the input and outputs only the final answer. Across the native → code-mixed → English performance trajectory, we observe a consistent flip point—the transition from incorrect to correct prediction—between the native and code-mixed settings. Notably, this pattern holds both when the code-mixed representation is explicitly provided as input or when the model is prompted to convert internally using TinT.

Online misinformation increasingly appears in spoken formats such as news clips, podcasts, interviews, political speeches, and social media videos, creating a need for fact-checking systems that can verify claims directly from speech. We introduce VERISPEAK, a probe benchmark for studying speech-based fact verification in Large Audio Language Models (LALMs). VERISPEAK contains 3,879 spoken claims spanning temporal, geographical, and relational facts, with balanced true and false labels. The benchmark is designed to examine whether factual verification ability transfers from text to speech, and whether retrieval-augmented LALMs can use textual evidence to correctly support or refute spoken claims. Our experiments reveal a consistent text–speech modality gap: LALMs that verify written claims reliably often fail on the same claims when spoken. Moreover, retrieval alone provides limited gains because models frequently conflate retrieved evidence with the spoken claim. In contrast, retrieval combined with explicit reasoning improves claim–evidence comparison, with a thinking-tuned LALM reaching 86.1% accuracy. VERISPEAK highlights that effective speech misinformation detection requires not only speech understanding, but also grounded reasoning over retrieved evidence.

In this paper, we reported our experiments with various strategies to improve code-mixed humour and sarcasm detection. Particularly, we tried three approaches: (i) native sample mixing, (ii) multi-task learning (MTL), and (iii) prompting and instruction finetuning very large multilingual language models (VMLMs). In native sample mixing, we added monolingual task samples to code-mixed training sets. In MTL learning, we relied on native and code-mixed samples of a semantically related task (hate detection in our case). Finally, in our third approach, we evaluated the efficacy of VMLMs via few-shot context prompting and instruction finetuning. Some interesting findings we got are (i) adding native samples improved humor (raising the F1-score up to 6.76%) and sarcasm (raising the F1-score up to 8.64%) detection, (ii) training MLMs in an MTL framework boosted performance for both humour (raising the F1-score up to 10.67%) and sarcasm (increment up to 12.35% in F1-score) detection, and (iii) prompting and instruction finetuning VMLMs couldn’t outperform the other approaches. Finally, our ablation studies and error analysis discovered the cases where our model is yet to improve. We provided our code for reproducibility.