Evaluating factual consistency is essential for reliable text summarization, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and news. However, most existing evaluation metrics overlook Bangla, a widely spoken yet under-resourced language, and often depend on reference summaries. We introduce BanglaSummEval, a reference-free, question-answering-based framework for evaluating factual consistency in Bangla summarization. The proposed method assesses both factual accuracy and content coverage through automatically generated questions and answers derived from the source document and the summary. A single multilingual instruction-tuned language model handles question generation, question answering, candidate answer extraction, and question importance weighting. This unified design reduces system complexity and computational cost. To capture semantic consistency beyond surface-level overlap, we use BERTScore-Recall for answer comparison. We validate BanglaSummEval on 300 human-written summaries from educational and medical domains, demonstrating strong correlation with expert human judgments (Pearson’s r = 0.694, Spearman’s 𝜌 = 0.763). By providing interpretable, step-wise diagnostics alongside reliable evaluation scores, BanglaSummEval offers a practical and transparent solution for factual consistency evaluation in low-resource language settings.

Detecting psychological defense mechanisms in conversational text remains a challenging clinical NLP problem. For the PsyDefDetect 2026 shared task (9-class utterance classification evaluated via macro F1), our team LinguIUTics1 achieves a macro F1-score of 0.3917 on the official positive-class leaderboard, ranking 4th out of 21 registered teams and improving over the Ministral-8B task baseline (31.48 macro F1) by +7.7 absolute points (+24.4% relative). BERT-family encoders and zero-shot LLMs proved ineffective on rare classes due to severe class imbalance, leading us to QLoRA fine-tuning of Qwen3-8B. We leverage three key strategies: grouped stratified cross-validation (preventing leakage), minority-class round-robin lexical augmentation, and a post-processing pipeline with logitbias tuning and ensemble blending. Together, these components close much of the validation–leaderboard gap and substantially improve minority-class recall, driving the critical "Unclear" class (Level 8) from near-zero performance to F1=0.797.

A large number of studies rely on closed-style multiple-choice surveys to evaluate cultural alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs). In this work, we challenge this constrained evaluation paradigm and explore more realistic, unconstrained approaches. Using the World Values Survey (WVS) and Hofstede Cultural Dimensions as case studies, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit stronger cultural alignment in less constrained settings, where responses are not forced. Additionally, we show that even minor changes, such as reordering survey choices, lead to inconsistent outputs, exposing the limitations of closed-style evaluations. Our findings advocate for more robust and flexible evaluation frameworks that focus on specific cultural proxies, encouraging more nuanced and accurate assessments of cultural alignment in LLMs.