From annotation to reasoning: Culture in language models

arXiv:2609.30897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How should we evaluate language models when more than one interpretation can be right? Cultural benchmarks often test factual knowledge, agreement with survey responses, or recognition of a predefined meaning. These tasks leave open whether a model can explain how a cultural reference works in a particular text, support a reading with evidence, or revise it after criticism. This is a question of interpretive depth, complementary to the breadth of cultural coverage. We argue that literary interpretation offers a useful setting for studying these capabilities. We focus on cultural referencing and reuse: how texts invoke, repeat, and transform earlier expressions across historical and linguistic contexts. Our central claim is that literary scholars can disagree about an interpretation while recognizing the quality of its support. We propose linking evidence-centered benchmarks, evaluation that preserves scholarly disagreement, and model-development experiments on literary data, contextual resources, and scholarly feedback. Danish literature provides a concrete starting point, with implications for other languages and domains. The aim is to develop alternative evaluation strategies that go beyond conventional benchmark metrics and guide model development toward cultural robustness in AI systems.

Abstract:How should we evaluate language models when more than one interpretation can be right? Cultural benchmarks often test factual knowledge, agreement with survey responses, or recognition of a predefined meaning. These tasks leave open whether a model can explain how a cultural reference works in a particular text, support a reading with evidence, or revise it after criticism. This is a question of interpretive depth, complementary to the breadth of cultural coverage. We argue that literary interpretation offers a useful setting for studying these capabilities. We focus on cultural referencing and reuse: how texts invoke, repeat, and transform earlier expressions across historical and linguistic contexts. Our central claim is that literary scholars can disagree about an interpretation while recognizing the quality of its support. We propose linking evidence-centered benchmarks, evaluation that preserves scholarly disagreement, and model-development experiments on literary data, contextual resources, and scholarly feedback. Danish literature provides a concrete starting point, with implications for other languages and domains. The aim is to develop alternative evaluation strategies that go beyond conventional benchmark metrics and guide model development toward cultural robustness in AI systems.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.30897 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.30897v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30897 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

From annotation to reasoning: Culture in language models

Subiecte conexe