Not What, But How: A Framework for Auditing LLM Responses across Positioning, Generalization, Anthropomorphism, and Maxims

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.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to users around the world, they are integrated into everyday tasks across diverse cultural contexts, from drafting personal communications to brainstorming creative ideas. These tasks are inherently cultural: they require contextual appropriateness, symbolic resonance, and tacit cultural expectations that native speakers draw on instinctively, meaning that a response can be factually plausible yet unmistakably wrong to a local reader. Existing cultural benchmarks have treated culture as a flat set of facts via fact verification or norm entailment methods, and have adopted LLM-as-a-Judge without examining whether they can capture such thick cultural errors. To address this gap, we present JuICE (Benchmark for LLM-Judge in Identifying Cultural Errors), a multilingual dataset of 7,470 span-level annotations of cultural and linguistic errors in long-form LLM responses. It covers 1,050 query-response pairs from four countries (the United States, South Korea, Indonesia, and Bangladesh), in both English and their countries' main languages. Using JuICE, we find that even the strongest LLM-judge achieves only an F1 of 0.52 in the erroneous span detection task. Furthermore, LLM-judges consistently miss thick cultural errors that local residents readily identify. Our findings suggest that robust cultural evaluation must move beyond surface-level detection toward frameworks that account for the depth and situatedness of cultural meaning.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.