SPLIT: Cross-Lingual Empathy and Cultural Grounding in English and Ukrainian LLM Responses

This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework grounded in the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skill Level Descriptions and applies it to Claude (Sonnet 4.6) across six languages: English, French, Romanian, Spanish, Italian, and German. We administer a battery of 12 semantically equivalent prompt clusters spanning ILR complexity levels 1 through 3+, collect 216 responses (12 prompts, 6 languages, 3 runs), and analyze outputs through a two-layer methodology combining automated quantitative metrics with expert ILR qualitative assessment. Quantitative analysis reveals that French responses are approximately 30% longer than German responses on identical prompts, and that creative and affective clusters show the highest cross-lingual surface divergence. Qualitative analysis, conducted by a six-language professional with 12 years of ILR/OPI assessment experience, identifies five cross-lingual variation patterns: systematic differences in pragmatic disambiguation strategies, aesthetic and literary tradition divergence in creative output, language-internal technical terminology norms, cultural calibration gaps evidenced by the absence of culture-specific content in favor of culturally neutralized templates, and language-specific institutional referral behavior in emotional support responses. We argue that ILR-informed expert judgment applied to LLM outputs constitutes a novel and underreported evaluation methodology that complements purely computational benchmarks, and that cross-lingual output variation in Claude is interpretable, domain-dependent, and consequential for equitable multilingual AI deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed worldwide, inspiring a surge of benchmarks that measure their multilingual and multicultural abilities. However, these benchmarks prioritize generic language understanding or superficial cultural trivia, leaving the evaluation of grounded tasks -- where models must reason within real-world, context-rich scenarios -- largely unaddressed. To fill this gap, we present CulturALL, a comprehensive and challenging benchmark to assess LLMs' multilingual and multicultural competence on grounded tasks. CulturALL is built via a human--AI collaborative framework: expert annotators ensure appropriate difficulty and factual accuracy, while LLMs lighten the manual workload. By incorporating diverse sources, CulturALL ensures comprehensive scenario coverage. Each item is carefully designed to present a high level of difficulty, making CulturALL challenging. CulturALL contains 2,610 samples in 14 languages from 51 regions, distributed across 16 topics to capture the full breadth of grounded tasks. Experiments show that the best LLM achieves 44.48% accuracy on CulturALL, underscoring substantial room for improvement.

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