Despite their impressive capabilities, multilingual large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit inconsistent behaviour when the prompt's language changes. While such adaptation is generally desirable, it becomes a critical failure when a user's identity is explicitly defined. For instance, given a fixed British persona and an ambiguous everyday knowledge query about literature, the prompt's language frequently overwrites the system persona -- yielding Shakespeare in English but Cervantes in Spanish. To robustly quantify this Cross-lingual Cultural Inconsistency, we introduce Singleton Fleiss's κS, a metric mathematically resilient to hallucinations. For mitigation, we propose Cross-lingual Cultural Consistent Preference Optimisation (C-3PO), a consensus-driven alignment framework. C-3PO achieves up to a 0.13-point absolute increase in κS over unaligned models, consistently outperforming strong prompting and representation steering baselines whilst preserving explicit user identities, cultural neutrality and intrinsic cultural knowledge. Empirical evaluations demonstrate this inconsistency disproportionately affects lower-resource languages like Indonesian and Persian. Finally, early decoding of intermediate layers reveals that MLLMs implicitly personalise outputs towards the prompt language's stereotypical culture as forward-pass representations stabilise.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Flowchart of the dataset construction process.
Group
Languages
Group
Languages
Higher-Res
en, zh, es
Indo-European
en, es, fa, el
Lower-Res
id, fa, ko, ar, el
Non-Indo
zh, id, ko, ar
Table 1: Language groups used in our analyses.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
Max σ
Min
Avg
Max
Min
Avg
Max
Min
Avg
Max
Qwen 2.5-3B
All
.309
.351
.304 CN
.309
.311 MX
.295 ID
.324
.360 US
.405
.389 CN
.409
.436 US
.017
High-Res
.461
.488
.454 KR
.463
.471 GR
.402 ID
.446
.463 CN
.580
.491 ID
.522
.542 US
.027
Low-Res
.271
.300
.266 GR
.272
.278 MX
.263 CN
.291
.331 US
.364
.348 CN
.375
.402 US
.020
Indo-Eu
.244
.280
.239 US
.248
.254 GR
.240 ID
.268
.303 US
.347
.316 CN
.341
.355 DZ
.021
Non-Indo
.355
.392
.346 KR
.353
.360 IR
.352 CN
.378
.404 US
.455
.449 ID
.472
.518 US
.023
Table 2: Singleton Fleiss’s κS scores ( ↑ ) across models, language groups and mitigation strategies. Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, reporting minimum, average and maximum scores (indicated by country code). Max σ is the maximum standard deviation across methods. Colour scales are applied row-wise.
Figure 4: κS variation (Qwen-2.5-3B) as languages are incrementally added by resource level: higher → lower , higher ← lower . Bands indicate ranges across personas.
Model
(i)
Vanilla
Few-shot
C-3PO
(ii)
Persona
Steering
C-3PO
(iii)
Vanilla
C-3PO
(iv)
Vanilla
C-3PO
Qwen-2.5-3B
5.87 (2.44)
5.88 (2.51)
5.86 (2.64)
42.4
28.6
43.2
62.7
62.4
59.5
59.8
Llama-3.1-8B
5.86 (2.82)
5.88 (2.56)
5.77 (2.84)
49.9
30.7
43.1
69.8
62.0
62.2
56.7
Gemma-2-27B
5.86 (3.31)
5.88 (3.44)
5.83 (3.15)
58.4
31.5
55.9
72.7
71.1
65.7
63.3
Table 3: (i) Cultural Bias: Country selection rate (%) per model and method in the test set, averaged across countries (standard deviation in parentheses). (ii) Persona Adherence: Accuracy (%) of persona-country matches. (iii-iv) Cultural Knowledge: Performance (%) on BLEnD on countries included in our dataset (iii) versus unseen countries (iv).
Figure 5: Cultural personalisation effect across layers for Llama-3.1-8B. Left: Frequency of the language’s stereotypical country (e.g., Indonesia for Indonesian). Right: Slope (%) of prediction frequency across layers per language-country pair. Red colour scale is normalised column-wise.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Format of the multiple-choice questions (MCQ) in the BLEnD benchmark. Each question consists of a prompt that includes a culturally-sensitive query and a set of answer choices, each associated with a specific country. In our work, we remove the country mention from the prompt to ensure that the question is culturally neutral.
Figure 7: System prompt used to remove country mentions from questions to ensure cultural neutrality.
Figure 8: System prompt used to translate answer options to the target language.
Figure 9: System prompt template used for the Persona Prompting baseline.
Figure 10: Format of the multiple-choice questions (MCQ) in the BLEnD benchmark without the JSON answer format. This format is used for the layer-wise early-decoding interpretability analysis in Section 7 to allow for direct extraction of the model’s choice at each layer without needing to parse a JSON structure.
Method
Hyperparameter
Value(s)
LoRA (C-3PO)
Rank ( r )
{8,16,32}
Alpha ( α )
2×r
Dropout
0.05
Target Modules
q, v, k, o, gate, up, down
DPO (C-3PO)
Epochs
{1,3,5}
Learning Rate
10−5
Appendix
Table 4: Summary of hyperparameters used across all mitigation and fine-tuning experiments. All inference was performed with greedy decoding ( do_sample=False ).
Figure 11: Singleton Fleiss’s κS consistency variation when adding languages in different orders for all models. Languages are ordered according to their resource level. Persona Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona show ranges across the eight personas.
Model
Method
AS
AZ
CN
DZ
ES
ET
GB
GR
ID
IR
KP
KR
MX
NG
US
WJ
XX
Mean
Std
Qwen 2.5-3B
Vanilla
4.28
3.61
8.98
6.97
5.40
3.68
6.84
7.07
7.67
7.67
4.41
9.49
5.85
3.23
10.20
2.62
1.76
5.87
2.44
Few Shot
4.73
3.68
7.90
7.70
5.72
4.09
7.13
7.90
7.80
7.42
3.93
7.77
5.15
3.04
11.73
2.56
1.73
5.88
2.51
C-3PO
4.57
3.48
9.78
6.65
6.04
2.97
7.16
7.23
7.07
7.48
4.06
8.76
5.98
3.36
11.25
2.43
1.31
5.86
2.64
Llama 3.1-8B
Vanilla
3.87
3.55
7.77
7.29
6.43
2.43
6.23
9.37
7.07
8.47
3.13
8.18
7.80
2.59
11.41
2.05
2.01
5.86
2.82
Few Shot
4.35
3.16
7.99
7.80
6.55
2.85
7.13
8.63
6.23
8.06
4.44
8.34
6.36
2.56
10.84
2.62
2.01
5.88
2.56
C-3PO
3.64
3.26
7.23
7.00
6.33
3.01
6.30
8.89
6.23
7.83
4.03
7.64
8.92
2.27
12.02
1.47
2.01
5.77
2.84
Appendix
Table 5: Country selection rate (%) per model and method in the test set. All sixteen countries from BLEnD are included. “XX” indicates BLEnD’s “dummy” option. The last two columns report the mean and standard deviation across countries.
Figure 12: κS consistency analysis across layers and language groups for Llama-3.1-8B. IE = Indo-European.
Figure 13: Cultural personalisation across layers for Llama-3.1-8B. Top: Frequency of the most predicted country. Bottom: Frequency of the language’s stereotypical country (e.g., Indonesia for Indonesian).
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.309
.351
.306
.311
.304
.310
.310
.310
.309
.309
.360
.321
.308
.295
.333
.325
.333
.319
.405
.436
.399
.389
.400
.413
.405
.420
.408
Higher-Resource
.461
.488
.465
.459
.466
.466
.464
.454
.461
.471
.448
.437
.463
.402
.457
.457
.461
.441
.580
.542
.512
.516
.491
.519
.516
.539
.542
Lower-Resource
.271
.300
.271
.278
.270
.272
.269
.278
.273
.266
.331
.301
.263
.271
.293
.283
.300
.287
.364
.402
.372
.348
.373
.375
.370
.387
.372
Indo-European
.244
.280
.239
.251
.241
.248
.254
.252
.246
.254
.303
.261
.256
.240
.282
.268
.272
.261
.347
.355
.341
.316
.330
.339
.346
.355
.348
Non-Indo-European
.355
.392
.355
.352
.347
.359
.360
.346
.354
.356
.404
.380
.352
.354
.380
.381
.404
.371
.455
.518
.466
.459
.449
.471
.464
.478
.469
Appendix
Table 6: Expanded results: Singleton Fleiss’s κS consistency scores ( ↑ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.482
.541
.479
.483
.478
.483
.483
.482
.481
.482
.516
.493
.483
.475
.506
.496
.507
.494
.553
.577
.553
.543
.554
.566
.556
.573
.562
Higher-Resource
.595
.632
.598
.593
.598
.598
.597
.589
.594
.602
.580
.575
.594
.552
.596
.592
.598
.581
.683
.654
.633
.636
.618
.642
.637
.659
.659
Lower-Resource
.455
.510
.455
.460
.455
.457
.455
.460
.458
.453
.496
.481
.454
.461
.479
.467
.485
.473
.524
.553
.537
.515
.536
.540
.532
.550
.537
Indo-European
.435
.497
.432
.441
.434
.439
.444
.442
.438
.444
.474
.454
.448
.440
.477
.458
.471
.460
.509
.514
.512
.490
.503
.513
.514
.529
.520
Non-Indo-European
.515
.566
.514
.512
.509
.518
.519
.508
.514
.515
.549
.534
.515
.516
.537
.535
.554
.527
.590
.640
.602
.595
.589
.608
.599
.613
.605
Appendix
Table 7: Expanded results: Soft consistency scores ( ↑ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.092
.151
.100
.097
.095
.097
.097
.100
.097
.092
.138
.110
.095
.074
.113
.110
.113
.105
.146
.192
.153
.125
.143
.151
.146
.161
.153
Higher-Resource
.442
.496
.448
.442
.448
.448
.448
.437
.442
.450
.422
.419
.440
.376
.442
.430
.453
.435
.552
.524
.486
.488
.460
.496
.478
.519
.524
Lower-Resource
.146
.210
.153
.148
.138
.146
.146
.148
.146
.143
.182
.169
.141
.141
.166
.156
.179
.156
.225
.243
.225
.187
.223
.210
.217
.230
.223
Indo-European
.161
.233
.164
.166
.159
.161
.174
.169
.161
.174
.228
.182
.169
.166
.205
.182
.197
.187
.238
.253
.238
.205
.235
.240
.240
.266
.248
Non-Indo-European
.263
.327
.258
.261
.251
.263
.266
.253
.258
.263
.309
.269
.248
.253
.289
.279
.304
.276
.345
.437
.371
.355
.345
.379
.361
.389
.376
Appendix
Table 8: Expanded results: Hard consistency scores ( ↑ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.647
.690
.644
.648
.644
.648
.648
.648
.647
.647
.672
.656
.650
.644
.667
.659
.668
.657
.703
.719
.703
.695
.705
.714
.706
.719
.713
Higher-Resource
.781
.800
.782
.779
.783
.783
.781
.777
.780
.785
.772
.769
.781
.760
.782
.782
.781
.770
.832
.812
.805
.806
.798
.810
.811
.819
.818
Lower-Resource
.650
.688
.650
.655
.650
.653
.651
.654
.653
.649
.682
.669
.651
.657
.671
.657
.674
.663
.698
.719
.712
.698
.713
.716
.709
.720
.711
Indo-European
.660
.696
.656
.664
.659
.663
.665
.664
.662
.664
.678
.670
.671
.660
.684
.675
.681
.673
.702
.705
.708
.694
.701
.710
.708
.718
.712
Non-Indo-European
.704
.737
.703
.704
.700
.707
.708
.701
.704
.705
.725
.719
.706
.708
.717
.715
.730
.715
.754
.781
.763
.755
.756
.765
.760
.764
.768
Appendix
Table 9: Expanded results: Mode frequency ( ↓ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.013
.003
.023
.023
.018
.018
.018
.020
.023
.031
.072
.041
.026
.036
.033
.031
.036
.056
.020
.028
.013
.010
.008
.010
.010
.005
.008
Higher-Resource
.008
.003
.015
.015
.010
.010
.013
.013
.015
.023
.049
.028
.026
.018
.018
.020
.023
.038
.020
.028
.013
.010
.008
.010
.010
.005
.008
Lower-Resource
.005
.000
.010
.010
.008
.008
.005
.010
.008
.008
.049
.015
.003
.023
.020
.015
.018
.026
.000
.005
.000
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
Indo-European
.008
.000
.010
.003
.008
.008
.005
.005
.008
.005
.026
.013
.013
.008
.010
.013
.010
.020
.013
.028
.013
.010
.005
.010
.008
.005
.008
Non-Indo-European
.010
.003
.015
.020
.015
.015
.015
.018
.020
.026
.066
.033
.020
.036
.033
.026
.033
.049
.015
.013
.008
.008
.008
.008
.010
.005
.008
Appendix
Table 10: Expanded results: Error metric ( ↓ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Model
Language Group
Vanilla
Few Shot
Steering
Persona
C-3PO Vanilla
C-3PO Persona
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
US
MX
CN
ID
IR
KR
DZ
GR
Qwen 2.5-3B
All 8 Languages
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Higher-Resource
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
Lower-Resource
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Indo-European
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Non-Indo-European
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
Appendix
Table 11: Expanded results: Singleton Fleiss’s κS ’s variance ( σS2 ) ( ↓ ) for all models across different language groups and mitigation strategies. Colour scales are for each row. Vector Steering, Persona Prompting and C-3PO Persona span eight personas, indicated by country code.
Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages. This leads to cross-lingual factual inconsistency, where they shift their empirical answer distributions based solely on the prompt language. We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages (German, Spanish, Bulgarian), and evaluate four intervention strategies: zero-shot contextual steering (persona prompting), internal representation manipulation via Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA), and lightweight weight modification via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) trained on benchmark-derived factual data as well as conceptual generalization data. To assess alignment, we curate a multilingual factual dataset alongside a novel generalization benchmark comprising culturally rooted queries to determine whether factual interventions transfer to broader target-centric preferences. Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization. While CAA yields sharp inconsistency benchmark shifts, it is configuration-sensitive and risks knowledge degradation. DPO-based adapters offer permanent, yet narrower and less transferable gains. These findings suggest that cross-lingual inconsistency is at least partly a selection problem, and that simple contextual interventions may outperform more invasive methods for robust, transferable alignment.
Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities across various tasks, they exhibit significant performance discrepancies across languages. While prompting LLMs in English typically yields the highest general performance, it often induces a Western-centric bias, hindering the model's ability to accurately reflect diverse cultural knowledge. We hypothesize that LLMs already possess rich cultural knowledge embedded within local-language representations, but fail to retrieve it when prompted in English. To bridge this cross-lingual knowledge gap, we propose a novel self-supervised framework. Our method leverages multilingual self-consistency to identify the most reliable cultural responses across languages, combined with a self-critique mechanism to transfer this knowledge to the weaker language. Evaluations on the BLEnD benchmark demonstrate that our approach significantly improves cultural alignment-boosting performance on English queries by an average of 5.03%-relying entirely on self-generated data. Ultimately, our work demonstrates that latent cultural knowledge can be successfully surfaced and propagated across languages, enabling more culturally equitable and consistent LLMs.
Andrew Ivan Soegeng, Patrick Sutanto, Tan Sang Nguyen
SAP · School of Computing, National University of Singapore
Multilingual fluency often invites a stronger assumption: a model that can speak a user's language must also understand the culture encoded by that language. We call this the Illusion of Cultural Alignment. To test this assumption directly, we introduce MSQA, a benchmark of 1,064 natively sourced questions across 11 language groups, five cultural dimensions, and three difficulty tiers. Unlike translated benchmarks, MSQA targets locally grounded knowledge and reduces shortcuts from English-centric cross-lingual transfer. Evaluating 18 LLMs, we find substantial cultural degradation and a pronounced Locality Effect: cultural competence tracks pre-training exposure more closely than general reasoning ability. We further show that common inference-time remedies do not dissolve the illusion. Models remain overconfident on unfamiliar cultural questions, repeated sampling yields unstable rather than reliable correctness, and retrieval augmentation helps unevenly on long-tail facts. These findings indicate that cultural alignment cannot be inferred from multilingual ability alone and requires deeper intervention than calibration, sampling, or retrieval at inference time