Lost in Translation: Investigating Systematic Discrepancies between Parallel English and Chinese Names of American Chinese Restaurants

Multimodal language models achieve near-ceiling scores on food recognition benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether this success reflects genuine cultural understanding or mere visual matching. To probe this distinction, we introduce CulturalMenuBench, a benchmark of 4,870 items in 10 languages across 18 regions; its 10 tasks pair final-dish and step-by-step cooking images with ingredients, procedural text, and regional labels, spanning basic recognition to process-grounded cultural attribution. Evaluating 12 models exposes a substantial knowledge-application gap: models exceeding 94% on standard multiple-choice tasks drop to at most 56% when attributing dishes to Chinese regional cuisines, despite an identical four-way format. Diagnostic analyses explain why: error patterns are consistent with random guessing, accuracy tracks visual distinctiveness rather than cultural structure, and models classify cuisines more accurately from dish names alone than from images (+7-18 points). The knowledge is thus present but cannot be activated through visual input. An ablation confirms these tasks genuinely require procedural evidence: removing sequential cooking images selectively degrades process-grounded tasks while others remain stable. Overall, CulturalMenuBench shows that near-perfect recognition can conceal an inability to apply cultural knowledge, motivating training that explicitly connects perception, procedure, and cultural context. Code and data are publicly available.

Chinese social media has generated a vast and continually evolving lexicon of internet buzzwords whose meanings are often non-literal and deeply rooted in local cultural and pragmatic contexts. Existing research has primarily focused on interpreting these buzzwords within Chinese, leaving largely unexplored whether LLMs can transfer such culturally grounded knowledge across languages and accurately convey the intended meanings in English. This cross-lingual capability is also critical for safety, as harmful expressions may obscure their offensive content through culture-specific homophony, euphemism, irony, or coded language. In this paper, we investigate the ability of advanced LLMs to understand Chinese internet buzzwords across languages. To this end, we introduce CIBuzzBench, the first benchmark for cross-lingual Chinese-to-English understanding of Chinese internet buzzwords. CIBuzzBench comprises 3,001 Chinese internet buzzwords annotated with English meaning explanations, English equivalents, category labels, and harmfulness labels. Based on these annotations, we design three evaluation tasks: Meaning Explanation, Cross-lingual Equivalent Matching, and Culturally Grounded Harmfulness Detection. We evaluate representative state-of-the-art proprietary and Chinese LLMs under both English- and Chinese-prompting settings. Our results show that LLMs continue to struggle with the cross-lingual understanding of Chinese internet buzzwords, particularly in fine-grained non-literal interpretation, robust equivalent matching under option perturbations, and calibrated harmfulness detection. These findings highlight the persistent challenges posed by culturally grounded language phenomena for multilingual LLMs and safety-oriented evaluation. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/SuperYFan/CIBuzzBench.

Reply assistance in multilingual settings requires linguistic competence and culturally situated judgments of appropriateness. We present PragAlign, which separates context reading from selective clarification, and evaluate it alongside Direct and Rule. Nine native Chinese speakers judged Chinese materials, while three native Japanese speakers judged matched Japanese versions. In the Chinese evaluation, PragAlign received significantly better ranks than both baselines. In the Japanese evaluation, Direct had the lowest mean rank, PragAlign had the highest top-rank rate, and the omnibus difference was not significant. The groups selected the same top condition in 5 of 10 scenarios, including four shared PragAlign selections. The results identify shared and language-specific judgment patterns and inform reply assistance designed to support linguistic and cultural understanding.