Not What, But How: A Communicative Audit of LLM Response Framing

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

JuICE: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-Judge in Identifying Cultural Errors

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.

LoCar: Localization-Aware Evaluation of In-Vehicle Assistants through Fine-Grained Sociolinguistic Control

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into in-vehicle conversational systems, identifying the optimal model remains challenging due to the lack of domain-specific evaluation standards tailored to real-world deployment requirements. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework for in-vehicle assistants, with a particular focus on Korean-language localization. Our empirical analysis reveals notable patterns in model behavior. First, fine-grained Korean honorific control remains unstable in current LLMs, indicating that precise speech-level realization must be explicitly evaluated in localization settings. Second, models exhibit weaker performance in strategic conversational metrics like clarification and proactivity. Our analysis suggests this stems from the inherent subjective complexity of these tasks, where our framework adopts a conservative evaluation stance to prioritize reliability. Together, our findings underscore that automotive AI must move beyond general competence toward precise linguistic tailoring and reliable, safety-oriented interaction management.

On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

SemEval-2026 Task 7: Everyday Knowledge Across Diverse Languages and Cultures

We present our shared task on evaluating the adaptability of LLMs and NLP systems across multiple languages and cultures. The task data consist of an extended version of our manually constructed BLEnD benchmark (Myung et al. 2024), covering more than 30 language-culture pairs, predominantly representing low-resource languages spoken across multiple continents. As the task is designed strictly for evaluation, participants were not permitted to use the data for training, fine-tuning, few-shot learning, or any other form of model modification. Our task includes two tracks: (a) Short-Answer Questions (SAQ) and (b) Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ). Participants were required to predict labels and were allowed to submit any NLP system and adopt diverse modelling strategies, provided that the benchmark was used solely for evaluation. The task attracted more than 140 registered participants, and we received final submissions from 62 teams, along with 19 system description papers. We report the results and present an analysis of the best-performing systems and the most commonly adopted approaches. Furthermore, we discuss shared insights into open questions and challenges related to evaluation, misalignment, and methodological perspectives on model behaviour in low-resource languages and for under-represented cultures.

Investigating Counterfactual Unfairness in LLMs towards Identities through Humor

Humor holds up a mirror to social perception: what we find funny often reflects who we are and how we judge others. When language models engage with humor, their reactions expose the social assumptions they have internalized from training data. In this paper, we investigate counterfactual unfairness through humor by observing how the model's responses change when we swap who speaks and who is addressed while holding other factors constant. Our framework spans three tasks: humor generation refusal, speaker intention inference, and relational/societal impact prediction, covering both identity-agnostic humor and identity-specific disparagement humor. We introduce interpretable bias metrics that capture asymmetric patterns under identity swaps. Experiments across state-of-the-art models reveal consistent relational disparities: jokes told by privileged speakers are refused up to 67.5% more often, judged as malicious 64.7% more frequently, and rated up to 1.5 points higher in social harm on a 5-point scale. These patterns highlight how sensitivity and stereotyping coexist in generative models, complicating efforts toward fairness and cultural alignment.

FINEST: Improving LLM Responses to Sensitive Topics Through Fine-Grained Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety. Existing evaluation frameworks lack systematic methods to identify and address specific weaknesses in responses to sensitive topics, making it difficult to improve both safety and helpfulness simultaneously. To address this, we introduce FINEST, a FINE-grained response evaluation taxonomy for Sensitive Topics, which breaks down helpfulness and harmlessness into errors across three main categories: Content, Logic, and Appropriateness. Experiments on a Korean-sensitive question dataset demonstrate that our score- and error-based improvement pipeline, guided by FINEST, significantly improves the model responses across all three categories, outperforming refinement without guidance. Notably, score-based improvement -- providing category-specific scores and justifications -- yields the most significant gains, reducing the error sentence ratio for Appropriateness by up to 33.09%. This work lays the foundation for a more explainable and comprehensive evaluation and improvement of LLM responses to sensitive questions.

A Neuropsychologically Grounded Evaluation of LLM Cognitive Abilities

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a unified "general factor" of capability across 10 benchmarks, a finding confirmed by our factor analysis of 156 models, yet they still struggle with simple, trivial tasks for humans. This is because current benchmarks focus on task completion, failing to probe the foundational cognitive abilities that highlight these behaviors. We address this by introducing the NeuroCognition benchmark, grounded in three adapted neuropsychological tests: Raven's Progressive Matrices (abstract relational reasoning), Spatial Working Memory (maintenance and systematic search), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (cognitive flexibility). Our evaluation reveals that while models perform strongly on text, their performance degrades for images and with increased complexity. Furthermore, we observe that complex reasoning is not universally beneficial, whereas simple, human-like strategies yield partial gains. We also find that NeuroCognition correlates positively with standard general-capability benchmarks, while still measuring distinct cognitive abilities beyond them. Overall, NeuroCognition emphasizes where current LLMs align with human-like intelligence and where they lack core adaptive cognition, showing the potential to serve as a verifiable, scalable source for improving LLMs.

MentalBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Psychiatric Diagnostic Capability of Large Language Models

We introduce MentalBench, a benchmark for evaluating psychiatric diagnostic decision-making in large language models (LLMs). Existing mental health benchmarks largely rely on social media data, limiting their ability to assess DSM-grounded diagnostic judgments. At the core of MentalBench is MentalKG, a psychiatrist-built and validated knowledge graph encoding DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and differential diagnostic rules for 23 psychiatric disorders. Using MentalKG as a golden-standard logical backbone, we generate 24,750 synthetic clinical cases that systematically vary in information completeness and diagnostic complexity, enabling low-noise and interpretable evaluation. Our experiments show that while state-of-the-art LLMs perform well on structured queries probing DSM-5 knowledge, they struggle to calibrate confidence in diagnostic decision-making when distinguishing between clinically overlapping disorders. These findings reveal evaluation gaps not captured by existing benchmarks.

Cultural Compass: A Framework for Organizing Societal Norms to Detect Violations in Human-AI Conversations

Generative AI models ought to be useful and safe across cross-cultural contexts. One critical step toward this goal is understanding how AI models adhere to sociocultural norms. While this challenge has gained attention in NLP, existing work lacks both nuance and coverage in understanding and evaluating models' norm adherence. We address these gaps by introducing a taxonomy of norms that clarifies their contexts (e.g., distinguishing between human-human norms that models should recognize and human-AI interactional norms that apply to the human-AI interaction itself), specifications (e.g., relevant domains), and mechanisms (e.g., modes of enforcement). We demonstrate how our taxonomy can be operationalized to automatically evaluate models' norm adherence in naturalistic, open-ended settings. Our exploratory analyses suggest that state-of-the-art models frequently violate norms, though violation rates vary by model, interactional context, and country. We further show that violation rates also vary by prompt intent and situational framing. Our taxonomy and demonstrative evaluation pipeline enable nuanced, context-sensitive evaluation of cultural norm adherence in realistic settings.