Toward Culturally Grounded Natural Language Processing

Recent progress in multilingual NLP is often taken as evidence of broader global inclusivity, but a growing literature shows that multilingual capability and cultural competence come apart. This paper synthesizes over 50 papers from 2020--2026 spanning multilingual performance inequality, cross-lingual transfer, culture-aware evaluation, cultural alignment, multimodal local-knowledge modeling, benchmark design critiques, and community-grounded data practices. Across this literature, training data coverage remains a strong determinant of performance, yet it is not sufficient: tokenization, prompt language, translated benchmark design, culturally specific supervision, and multimodal context all materially affect outcomes. Recent work on Global-MMLU, CDEval, WorldValuesBench, CulturalBench, CULEMO, CulturalVQA, GIMMICK, DRISHTIKON, WorldCuisines, CARE, CLCA, and newer critiques of benchmark design and community-grounded evaluation shows that strong multilingual models can still flatten local norms, misread culturally grounded cues, and underperform in lower-resource or community-specific settings. We argue that the field should move from treating languages as isolated rows in a benchmark spreadsheet toward modeling communicative ecologies: the institutions, scripts, translation pipelines, domains, modalities, and communities through which language is used. On that basis, we propose a research agenda for culturally grounded NLP centered on richer contextual metadata, culturally stratified evaluation, participatory alignment, within-language variation, and multimodal community-aware design.

The Hidden Puppet Master: Predicting Human Belief Change in Manipulative LLM Dialogues

As users increasingly turn to LLMs for practical and personal advice, they become vulnerable to subtle steering toward hidden incentives misaligned with their own interests. While existing NLP research has benchmarked manipulation detection, these efforts often rely on simulated debates and remain fundamentally decoupled from actual human belief shifts in real-world scenarios. We introduce PUPPET, a theoretical taxonomy and resource that bridges this gap by focusing on the moral direction of hidden incentives in everyday, advice-giving contexts. We provide an evaluation dataset of N=1,035 human-LLM interactions, where we measure users' belief shifts. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect in current safety paradigms: while models can be trained to detect manipulative strategies, they do not correlate with the magnitude of resulting belief change. As such, we define the task of belief shift prediction and show that while state-of-the-art LLMs achieve moderate correlation (r=0.3-0.5), they systematically underestimate the intensity of human belief susceptibility. This work establishes a theoretically grounded and behaviorally validated foundation for AI social safety efforts by studying incentive-driven manipulation in LLMs during everyday, practical user queries.

GS-BrainText: A Multi-Site Brain Imaging Report Dataset from Generation Scotland for Clinical Natural Language Processing Development and Validation

We present GS-BrainText, a curated dataset of 8,511 brain radiology reports from the Generation Scotland cohort, of which 2,431 are annotated for 24 brain disease phenotypes. This multi-site dataset spans five Scottish NHS health boards and includes broad age representation (mean age 58, median age 53), making it uniquely valuable for developing and evaluating generalisable clinical natural language processing (NLP) algorithms and tools. Expert annotations were performed by a multidisciplinary clinical team using an annotation schema, with 10-100% double annotation per NHS health board and rigorous quality assurance. Benchmark evaluation using EdIE-R, an existing rule-based NLP system developed in conjunction with the annotation schema, revealed some performance variation across health boards (F1: 86.13-98.13), phenotypes (F1: 22.22-100) and age groups (F1: 87.01-98.13), highlighting critical challenges in generalisation of NLP tools. The GS-BrainText dataset addresses a significant gap in available UK clinical text resources and provides a valuable resource for the study of linguistic variation, diagnostic uncertainty expression and the impact of data characteristics on NLP system performance.

No Hard Negatives Required: Concept Centric Learning Leads to Compositionality without Degrading Zero-shot Capabilities of Contrastive Models

Contrastive vision-language (V&L) models remain a popular choice for various applications. However, several limitations have emerged, most notably the limited ability of V&L models to learn compositional representations. Prior methods often addressed this limitation by generating custom training data to obtain hard negative samples. Hard negatives have been shown to improve performance on compositionality tasks, but are often specific to a single benchmark, do not generalize, and can cause substantial degradation of basic V&L capabilities such as zero-shot or retrieval performance, rendering them impractical. In this work we follow a different approach. We identify two root causes that limit compositionality performance of V&Ls: 1) Long training captions do not require a compositional representation; and 2) The final global pooling in the text and image encoders lead to a complete loss of the necessary information to learn binding in the first place. As a remedy, we propose two simple solutions: 1) We obtain short concept centric caption parts using standard NLP software and align those with the image; and 2) We introduce a parameter-free cross-modal attention-pooling to obtain concept centric visual embeddings from the image encoder. With these two changes and simple auxiliary contrastive losses, we obtain SOTA performance on standard compositionality benchmarks, while maintaining or improving strong zero-shot and retrieval capabilities. This is achieved without increasing inference cost. We release the code for this work at https://github.com/SamsungLabs/concept_centric_clip.

A Catalog of Basque Dialectal Resources: Online Collections and Standard-to-Dialectal Adaptations

Recent research on dialectal NLP has identified data scarcity as a primary limitation. To address this limitation, this paper presents a catalog of contemporary Basque dialectal data and resources, offering a systematic and comprehensive compilation of the dialectal data currently available in Basque. Two types of data sources have been distinguished: online data originally written in some dialect, and standard-to-dialect adapted data. The former includes all dialectal data that can be found online, such as news and radio sites, informal tweets, as well as online resources such as dictionaries, atlases, grammar rules, or videos. The latter consists of data that has been adapted from the standard variety to dialectal varieties, either manually or automatically. Regarding the manual adaptation, the test split of the XNLI Natural Language Inference dataset was manually adapted into three Basque dialects: Western, Central, and Navarrese-Lapurdian, yielding a high-quality parallel gold standard evaluation dataset. With respect to the automatic dialectal adaptation, the automatically adapted physical commonsense dataset (BasPhyCowest) underwent additional manual evaluation by native speakers to assess its quality and determine whether it could serve as a viable substitute for full manual adaptation (i.e., silver data creation).

AdaLTM: Adaptive Layer-wise Task Vector Merging for Categorical Speech Emotion Recognition with ASR Knowledge Integration

Integrating Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) into Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) enhances modeling by providing linguistic context. However, conventional feature fusion faces performance bottlenecks, and multi-task learning often suffers from optimization conflicts. While task vectors and model merging have addressed such conflicts in NLP and CV, their potential in speech tasks remains largely unexplored. In this work, we propose an Adaptive Layer-wise Task Vector Merging (AdaLTM) framework based on WavLM-Large. Instead of joint optimization, we extract task vectors from in-domain ASR and SER models fine-tuned on emotion datasets. These vectors are integrated into a frozen base model using layer-wise learnable coefficients. This strategy enables depth-aware balancing of linguistic and paralinguistic knowledge across transformer layers without gradient interference. Experiments on the MSP-Podcast demonstrate that the proposed approach effectively mitigates conflicts between ASR and SER.

Can MLLMs Read Students' Minds? Unpacking Multimodal Error Analysis in Handwritten Math

Assessing student handwritten scratchwork is crucial for personalized educational feedback but presents unique challenges due to diverse handwriting, complex layouts, and varied problem-solving approaches. Existing educational NLP primarily focuses on textual responses and neglects the complexity and multimodality inherent in authentic handwritten scratchwork. Current multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at visual reasoning but typically adopt an "examinee perspective", prioritizing generating correct answers rather than diagnosing student errors. To bridge these gaps, we introduce ScratchMath, a novel benchmark specifically designed for explaining and classifying errors in authentic handwritten mathematics scratchwork. Our dataset comprises 1,720 mathematics samples from Chinese primary and middle school students, supporting two key tasks: Error Cause Explanation (ECE) and Error Cause Classification (ECC), with seven defined error types. The dataset is meticulously annotated through rigorous human-machine collaborative approaches involving multiple stages of expert labeling, review, and verification. We systematically evaluate 16 leading MLLMs on ScratchMath, revealing significant performance gaps relative to human experts, especially in visual recognition and logical reasoning. Proprietary models notably outperform open-source models, with large reasoning models showing strong potential for error explanation. All evaluation data and frameworks are publicly available to facilitate further research.

ReasonScaffold: A Scaffolded Reasoning-based Annotation Protocol for Human-AI Co-Annotation

Human annotation is central to NLP evaluation, yet subjective tasks often exhibit substantial variability across annotators. While large language models (LLMs) can provide structured reasoning to support annotation, their influence on human annotation behavior remains underexplored. We introduce \textbf{ReasonScaffold}, a scaffolded reasoning annotation protocol that exposes LLM-generated explanations while withholding predicted labels. We study how reasoning affects human annotation behavior in a controlled setting, rather than evaluating annotation accuracy. Using a two-pass protocol inspired by Delphi-style revision, annotators first label instances independently and then revise their decisions after viewing model-generated reasoning. We evaluate the approach on sentiment classification and opinion detection tasks, analyzing changes in inter-annotator agreement and revision behavior. To quantify these effects, we introduce the Annotator Effort Proxy (AEP), a metric capturing the proportion of labels revised after exposure to reasoning. Our results show that exposure to reasoning is associated with increased agreement, along with minimal revision, suggesting that reasoning helps resolve ambiguous cases without inducing widespread changes. These findings provide insight into how reasoning explanations shape annotation consistency and highlight reasoning-based scaffolds as a practical mechanism for human--AI co-annotation workflows.

ReCUBE: Evaluating Repository-Level Context Utilization in Code Generation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as capable coding assistants that operate over large codebases through either agentic exploration or full-context generation. Existing benchmarks capture a broad range of coding capabilities, such as resolving GitHub issues, but none of them directly isolate and measure how effectively LLMs leverage repository-level context during code generation. To address this, we introduce ReCUBE, a benchmark in which LLMs reconstruct a masked file within a real-world repository, using all remaining source files, dependency specifications, and documentation as their only source of context. ReCUBE evaluates reconstructed code with usage-aware test cases that simulate both internal module logic and external cross-file integration, reflecting real-world software usage patterns. We further propose the Caller-Centric Exploration (CCE) toolkit, a set of dependency graph-based tools that can be integrated into agentic frameworks to guide agents toward the most relevant caller files during repository exploration. Experiments across eight models in four settings show that repository-level context utilization remains highly challenging even for state-of-the-art models, with GPT-5 achieving only 37.57% strict pass rate in the full-context setting. Agents augmented with our CCE toolkit consistently outperform all baselines across all evaluated models, with improvements of up to 7.56% in strict pass rate. We release our benchmark, code, and evaluation framework as open source for the NLP research community.

Resisting Humanization: Ethical Front-End Design Choices in AI for Sensitive Contexts

Ethical debates in AI have primarily focused on back-end issues such as data governance, model training, and algorithmic decision-making. Less attention has been paid to the ethical significance of front-end design choices, such as the interaction and representation-based elements through which users interact with AI systems. This gap is particularly significant for Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems, where humanizing design elements such as dialogue-based interaction, emotive language, personality modes, and anthropomorphic metaphors are increasingly prevalent. This work argues that humanization in AI front-end design is a value-driven choice that profoundly shapes users' mental models, trust calibration, and behavioral responses. Drawing on research in human-computer interaction (HCI), conversational AI, and value-sensitive design, we examine how interfaces can play a central role in misaligning user expectations, fostering misplaced trust, and subtly undermining user autonomy, especially in vulnerable contexts. To ground this analysis, we discuss two AI systems developed by Chayn, a nonprofit organization supporting survivors of gender-based violence. Chayn is extremely cautious when building AI that interacts with or impacts survivors by operationalizing their trauma-informed design principles. This Chayn case study illustrates how ethical considerations can motivate principled restraint in interface design, challenging engagement-based norms in contemporary AI products. We argue that ethical front-end AI design is a form of procedural ethics, enacted through interaction choices rather than embedded solely in system logic.