Large language models (LLMs) increasingly evaluate human writing in high-stakes domains such as hiring and academic assessment, putting non-native speakers at particular risk. Drawing on the language attitudes framework, we compared human and LLM evaluations of parallel L1- and L2-written Japanese emails on three dimensions: fluency, status, and solidarity.
PragAlign is a reply‑assistance system that separates context reading from selective clarification, designed for multilingual settings. In evaluations with native Chinese and Japanese speakers, PragAlign achieved better rankings than baseline methods in Chinese and the highest top‑rank rate in Japanese, while both groups often chose the same top condition. The study highlights both shared and language‑specific judgment patterns that can inform culturally aware reply‑assistance tools.
arXiv:2610.29896v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing social bias benchmarks evaluate large language models mostly on fluent, well-formed English, reflecting native speaker usage and leaving non-n...
Existing social bias benchmarks evaluate large language models mostly on fluent, well-formed English, reflecting native speaker usage and leaving non-native writers unrepresented. To address this gap,...
arXiv:2608. 14896v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models work well on English and behave in poorly understood ways on languages typologically far from it.
arXiv:2610.35168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The value of language models for any community depends on whether a model actually understands the culture of the people it intends to serve. We use th...
The study reports that ChatGPT 5.2 successfully passed a Finnish-language Turing Test conducted in Finland, contrary to expectations that uneven representation of Finnish in training data would hinder performance. The authors attribute failures mainly to participants using colloquial Finnish cues to identify human authorship. They propose reinterpreting the Turing Test as a comparative method to assess an AI’s credible membership in a specific social world, highlighting its utility for probing the human‑machine boundary across domains.
arXiv:2606. 01260v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite being home to more than 1300 ethnic groups and 700 indigenous languages, bias in Large Language Models has not been fully studied in Indonesia, thus leaving a critical gap in evaluating representational fairness and localized stereotypes within its uniquely vast, multilingual, and diverse sociocultural landscape.
The paper presents a multilingual audit of stereotype bias in large language models (LLMs) using 12,000 locally written Reddit posts in English, Spanish, French, and German. It evaluates gender, racial, and religious bias across six models (three open-weight and three proprietary APIs) with a two-blank design to reduce grammatical cues, finding that religion shows the highest imbalance, Spanish leads in gender bias, and German in race and religion. The study highlights that aggregate scores can mask category- and context-specific biases, underscoring the need for detailed inspection before deploying LLMs in consequential settings.
The paper investigates cultural biases in large language models (LLMs) by introducing the Culture-Related Open Questions (CROQ) dataset, which contains 24‑language questions about generic culture. Experiments reveal that LLMs disproportionately favor Japan in their responses, especially when prompted in high‑resource languages, while low‑resource languages tend to highlight countries where the language is official. The study also finds that these biases emerge after supervised fine‑tuning rather than during pre‑training.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in hiring workflows, yet most research on gender bias in LLM hiring decisions has focused on English-language, Western-format resumes. This study examines whether pro-female gender bias extends to a Japanese corporate context and evaluates two practical mitigation strategies.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) assess politeness in ways that match human judgments. Using two English datasets—one with continuous ratings and another with three‑way categorical labels—the authors find that LLMs agree more with each other than with humans. They observe that model–human alignment depends on explicit linguistic cues, while misaligned cases often involve rapport‑building strategies. Additionally, models tend to overproduce Neutral labels and underpredict Impolite labels, a pattern that persists even when expert consensus is used as a reference.