Cross-cultural competence in large language models (LLMs) requires understanding and adapting Culture-Specific Items (CSIs) across varying cultural contexts. However, progress in evaluating this capability remains limited by the lack of high-quality CSI-annotated corpora with parallel cross-cultural sentence pairs. We introduce XCR-Bench, a Cross(X)-Cultural Reasoning Benchmark containing 4.1k parallel sentences and 1,098 CSIs across three reasoning tasks. XCR-Bench integrates Newmark’s CSI framework with Hall’s Triad of Culture, enabling evaluation across levels of cultural visibility, from observable practices to implicit social norms and values. Experiments on eight multilingual LLMs show that state-of-the-art models exhibit consistent weaknesses in identifying and adapting specific categories of CSIs, revealing a gap between surface-level recall and explicit cultural reasoning. Performance declines significantly on culturally sensitive categories and deeper cultural levels (p<0.005, 8/8 models), and adaptation quality varies systematically across target cultures and Bengali regional variants, indicating encoded regional and ethno-religious biases even within a single linguistic setting. We publicly release the corpus and code to support future research on cross-cultural NLP.

Machine Translation (MT) is widely employed to address resource scarcity in low-resource languages by generating synthetic data from high-resource counterparts. While sentiment preservation in translation has long been studied, a critical but underexplored factor is the role of cultural alignment between source and target languages. In this paper, we hypothesize that semantic labels are drifted or altered during MT due to cultural divergence. Through a series of experiments across culturally sensitive and neutral domains, we establish three key findings: (1) MT systems, including modern Large Language Models (LLMs), induce label drift during translation, particularly in culturally sensitive domains; (2) unlike earlier statistical MT tools, LLMs encode cultural knowledge, and leveraging this knowledge can amplify label drift; and (3) cultural similarity or dissimilarity between source and target languages is a crucial determinant of label preservation. Our findings highlight that neglecting cultural factors in MT not only undermines label fidelity but also risks misinterpretation and cultural conflict in downstream applications.

A large number of studies rely on closed-style multiple-choice surveys to evaluate cultural alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs). In this work, we challenge this constrained evaluation paradigm and explore more realistic, unconstrained approaches. Using the World Values Survey (WVS) and Hofstede Cultural Dimensions as case studies, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit stronger cultural alignment in less constrained settings, where responses are not forced. Additionally, we show that even minor changes, such as reordering survey choices, lead to inconsistent outputs, exposing the limitations of closed-style evaluations. Our findings advocate for more robust and flexible evaluation frameworks that focus on specific cultural proxies, encouraging more nuanced and accurate assessments of cultural alignment in LLMs.

Current research on bias in language models (LMs) predominantly focuses on data quality, with significantly less attention paid to model architecture and temporal influences of data. Even more critically, few studies systematically investigate the origins of bias. We propose a methodology grounded in comparative behavioral theory to interpret the complex interaction between training data and model architecture in bias propagation during language modeling. Building on recent work that relates transformers to n-gram LMs, we evaluate how data, model design choices, and temporal dynamics affect bias propagation. Our findings reveal that: (1) n-gram LMs are highly sensitive to context window size in bias propagation, while transformers demonstrate architectural robustness; (2) the temporal provenance of training data significantly affects bias; and (3) different model architectures respond differentially to controlled bias injection, with certain biases (e.g. sexual orientation) being disproportionately amplified. As language models become ubiquitous, our findings highlight the need for a holistic approach, tracing bias to its origins across both data and model dimensions, not just symptoms, to mitigate harm.

The widespread adoption of language models highlights the need for critical examinations of their inherent biases, particularly concerning religion. This study systematically investigates religious bias in both language models and text-to-image generation models, analyzing both open-source and closed-source systems. We construct approximately 400 unique, naturally occurring prompts to probe language models for religious bias across diverse tasks, including mask filling, prompt completion, and image generation. Our experiments reveal concerning instances of underlying stereotypes and biases associated disproportionately with certain religions. Additionally, we explore cross-domain biases, examining how religious bias intersects with demographic factors such as gender, age, and nationality. This study further evaluates the effectiveness of targeted debiasing techniques by employing corrective prompts designed to mitigate the identified biases. Our findings demonstrate that language models continue to exhibit significant biases in both text and image generation tasks, emphasizing the urgent need to develop fairer language models to achieve global acceptability.

Mental health research through data-driven methods has been hindered by a lack of standard typology and scarcity of adequate data. In this study, we leverage the clinical articulation of depression to build a typology for social media texts for detecting the severity of depression. It emulates the standard clinical assessment procedure Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to encompass subtle indications of depressive disorders from tweets. Along with the typology, we present a new dataset of 40191 tweets labeled by expert annotators. Each tweet is labeled as ’non-depressed’ or ’depressed’. Moreover, three severity levels are considered for ’depressed’ tweets: (1) mild, (2) moderate, and (3) severe. An associated confidence score is provided with each label to validate the quality of annotation. We examine the quality of the dataset via representing summary statistics while setting strong baseline results using attention-based models like BERT and DistilBERT. Finally, we extensively address the limitations of the study to provide directions for further research.