Mona T. Diab

To interact with users fairly and without stereotyping, AI models must display cultural competency, i.e., the ability to infer and adapt to a user's implicitly signaled cultural values, rather than relying on static demographic traits. We introduce CCBench, a framework for evaluating cultural competency in large language models (LLMs), treating culture as a continuum of norm adherence states rather than as a binary state of cultural belongingness. As a case study on health, we create CCBench-Health, which includes 60 theoretically grounded personas exhibiting varied norm‑adherence states across six cultures, each engaging in 18 realistic dialogues. Each persona is evaluated on 52 authentic healthcare questions drawn from real user forums, yielding 3,120 unique interactions. Benchmarking five leading models reveals that even the best achieve culturally appropriate responses only 20-30% of the time. When explicitly prompted to focus on culturally relevant cues from the conversational history (CoT), performance improves modestly by 3-5% on average. We find that models perform best when personas avoid cultural norms rather than follow them, revealing a persistent asymmetry, suggesting a preference in the models to align with built-in biases than adapt to cultural cues. This is especially observed in the Afghan context (Avg: 8.8%), where cultural cues rarely yield appropriate health advice. Finally, we find that models sometimes adapt more readily to implicit, cultural conversational styles than to explicitly stated cultural practices, though this varies across cultures.

Mechanistic interpretability is often motivated for alignment auditing, where a model's verbal explanations can be absent, incomplete, or misleading. Yet many evaluations do not control whether black-box prompting alone can recover the target behavior, so apparent gains from white-box tools may reflect elicitation rather than internal signal; we call this the *elicitation confounder*. We introduce Pando, a model-organism benchmark that breaks this confound via an *explanation axis*: models are trained to produce either faithful explanations of the true rule, no explanation, or confident but unfaithful explanations of a disjoint distractor rule. Across 720 finetuned models implementing hidden decision-tree rules, agents predict held-out model decisions from $10$ labeled query--response pairs, optionally augmented with one interpretability tool output. When explanations are faithful, black-box elicitation matches or exceeds all white-box methods; when explanations are absent or misleading, gradient-based attribution improves accuracy by 3--5 percentage points, and relevance patching, RelP, gives the largest gains, while logit lens, sparse autoencoders, and circuit tracing provide no reliable benefit. Variance decomposition suggests gradients track *decision computation*, which fields causally drive the output, whereas other readouts are dominated by *task representation*, biases toward field identity and value. We release all models, code, and evaluation infrastructure.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or si...