Large language models have become the latest trend in natural language processing, heavily featuring in the digital tools we use every day. However, their replies often reflect a narrow cultural viewpoint that overlooks the diversity of global users. This missing capability could be referred to as cultural reasoning, which we define here as the capacity of a model to recognise culture-specific knowledge values and social norms, and to adjust its output so that it aligns with the expectations of individual users. Because culture shapes interpretation, emotional resonance, and acceptable behaviour, cultural reasoning is essential for identity-aware AI. When this capacity is limited or absent, models can sustain stereotypes, ignore minority perspectives, erode trust, and perpetuate hate. Recent empirical studies strongly suggest that current models default to Western norms when judging moral dilemmas, interpreting idioms, or offering advice, and that fine-tuning on survey data only partly reduces this tendency. The present evaluation methods mainly report static accuracy scores and thus fail to capture adaptive reasoning in context. Although broader datasets can help, they cannot alone ensure genuine cultural competence. Therefore, we argue that cultural reasoning must be treated as a foundational capability alongside factual accuracy and linguistic coherence. By clarifying the concept and outlining initial directions for its assessment, a foundation is laid for future systems to be able to respond with greater sensitivity to the complex fabric of human culture.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in tasks such as psychological text analysis and decision-making in automated workflows. However, their reliability remains a concern due to potential biases inherited from their training process. In this study, we examine how different response format--binary versus continuous-- may systematically influence LLMs' judgments. In a value statement judgments task and a text sentiment analysis task, we prompted LLMs to simulate human responses and tested both formats across several models, including both open-source and commercial models. Our findings revealed a consistent negative bias: LLMs were more likely to deliver "negative" judgments in binary formats compared to continuous ones. Control experiments further revealed that this pattern holds across both tasks. Our results highlight the importance of considering response format when applying LLMs to decision tasks, as small changes in task design can introduce systematic biases.

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) hold positions that conflict with your country's values? Occasionally they do! However, existing works primarily focus on ethical reviews, failing to capture the diversity of national values, which encompass broader policy, legal, and moral considerations. Furthermore, current benchmarks that rely on spectrum tests using manually designed questionnaires are not easily scalable. To address these limitations, we introduce NaVAB, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the alignment of LLMs with the values of five major nations: China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. NaVAB implements a national value extraction pipeline to efficiently construct value assessment datasets. Specifically, we propose a modeling procedure with instruction tagging to process raw data sources, a screening process to filter value-related topics and a generation process with a Conflict Reduction mechanism to filter non-conflicting values.We conduct extensive experiments on various LLMs across countries, and the results provide insights into assisting in the identification of misaligned scenarios. Moreover, we demonstrate that NaVAB can be combined with alignment techniques to effectively reduce value concerns by aligning LLMs' values with the target country.

As AI systems become more advanced, ensuring their alignment with a diverse range of individuals and societal values becomes increasingly critical. But how can we capture fundamental human values and assess the degree to which AI systems align with them? We introduce ValueCompass, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review, to identify and evaluate human-AI alignment. We apply ValueCompass to measure the value alignment of humans and language models (LMs) across four real-world vignettes: collaborative writing, education, public sectors, and healthcare. Our findings uncover risky misalignment between humans and LMs, such as LMs agreeing with values like "Choose Own Goals", which are largely disagreed by humans. We also observe values vary across vignettes, underscoring the necessity for context-aware AI alignment strategies. This work provides insights into the design space of human-AI alignment, offering foundations for developing AI that responsibly reflects societal values and ethics.