Cultural Binding Heads in Language Models

Recent work has shown that LLMs overrepresent dominant cultures, particularly Western ones, while marginalizing others. We investigate whether this affects models' ability to generate culturally adapted responses by evaluating their use of local measurement units based on the user's perceived cultural background. We introduce Cultural and Pragmatic Response Inference (CAPRI), a dataset of conversations with varying levels of cultural cues. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs show that models can infer cultural background and recall relevant conventions, but often fail to utilize the information to adapt their answers to the relevant cultural conventions, unless explicitly prompted to perform the tasks sequentially. We further evaluate adaptation to the interpretation of time and quantity expressions, two subjective language grounding dimensions that are affected by culture. We find that models increasingly adapt their answers as cultural cues accumulate, but their priors are not culture-neutral, sometimes aligning with the model's country of origin. Overall, CAPRI provides a resource for future research aimed at narrowing the gap between cultural knowledge and culturally adaptive language generation.

Cultural alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for producing contextually aware, respectful, and trustworthy outputs. Without it, models risk generating stereotyped, insensitive, or misleading responses that fail to reflect cultural diversity w.r.t Helpful, Harmless, and Honest (HHH) paradigm. Existing benchmarks represent early steps toward cultural alignment; yet, no benchmarks currently enables systematic evaluation of cultural alignment in line with UNESCO's principles of cultural diversity w.r.t HHH paradigm. Therefore, to address this gap, we built Align-Cultura, two-stage pipeline for cultural alignment. Stage I constructs CULTURAX, the HHH-English dataset grounded in the UNESCO cultural taxonomy, through Query Construction, which reclassifies prompts, expands underrepresented domains (or labels), and prevents data leakage with SimHash. Then, Response Generation pairs prompts with culturally grounded responses via two-stage rejection sampling. The final dataset contains 1,500 samples spanning 30 subdomains of tangible and intangible cultural forms. Stage II benchmarks CULTURAX on general-purpose models, culturally fine-tuned models, and open-weight LLMs (Qwen3-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B). Empirically, culturally fine-tuned models improve joint HHH by 4%-6%, reduce cultural failures by 18%, achieve 10%-12% efficiency gains, and limit leakage to 0.3%.

Many benchmarks show that large language models can answer direct questions about culture. We study a different question: do they also change how they speak when culture is only implied by the situation? We evaluate 60 culturally grounded conversational scenarios across five languages in three conditions: a neutral baseline (Prompt A), an explicit cultural instruction (Prompt B), and implicit situational cueing (Prompt C). We score responses on 12 pragmatic features covering deference to authority, individual-versus-group framing, and uncertainty management. We define Pragmatic Context Sensitivity (PCS) as the fraction of the Prompt A->B shift that reappears under Prompt A->C. Across four deployed LLMs and five languages (English, German, Hindi, Nepali, Urdu), the primary stable-only PCS mean is 0.196 (SD = 0.113), indicating that the models recover only about one-fifth of the pragmatic shift they can produce when instructed explicitly. Transfer is strongest for authority-related cues (0.299) and weakest for individual-versus-group framing (0.120). Uncertainty-related behaviour is mixed: hedging density exhibits negative explicit gaps in all five languages, suggesting that alignment training actively suppresses the target behaviour. Because Hindi and Urdu share core grammar yet index distinct cultural communities, we use them as a natural control; a paired analysis finds no reliable baseline difference (t = 0.96, p = 0.339, dz = 0.06), suggesting that models respond primarily to linguistic structure rather than to the cultural associations a language carries. We argue that multilingual cultural pragmatics is an explicit-versus-implicit deployment problem, not only a factual knowledge problem.