Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic Western-centric bias, yet whether prompting in non-Western languages (e.g., Chinese) can mitigate this remains understudied. Answering this question requires rigorous evaluation and effective mitigation, but existing approaches fall short on both fronts: evaluation methods force outputs into predefined cultural categories without a neutral option, while mitigation relies on expensive multi-cultural corpora or agent frameworks that use functional roles (e.g., Planner–Critique) lacking explicit cultural representation. To address these gaps, we introduce CEBiasBench, a Chinese–English bilingual benchmark, and Multi-Agent Vote (MAV), which enables explicit "no bias” judgments. Using this framework, we find that Chinese prompting merely shifts bias toward East Asian perspectives rather than eliminating it. To mitigate such persistent bias, we propose Multi-Agent Cultural Debate (MACD), a training-free framework that assigns agents distinct cultural personas and orchestrates deliberation via a "Seeking Common Ground while Reserving Differences” strategy. Experiments demonstrate that MACD achieves 57.6% average No Bias Rate evaluated by LLM-as-judge and 86.0% evaluated by MAV (vs. 47.6% and 69.0% baseline using GPT-4o as backbone) on CEBiasBench and generalizes to the Arabic CAMeL benchmark, confirming that explicit cultural representation in agent frameworks is essential for cross-cultural fairness.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional instruct-following ability to complete various downstream tasks. Although this impressive ability makes LLMs flexible task solvers, their performance in solving tasks also heavily relies on instructions. In this paper, we reveal that LLMs are over-sensitive to lexical variations in task instructions, even when the variations are imperceptible to humans. By providing models with neighborhood instructions, which are closely situated in the latent representation space and differ by only one semantically similar word, the performance on downstream tasks can be vastly different. Following this property, we propose a black-box Combinatorial Optimization framework for Prompt Lexical Enhancement (COPLE). COPLE performs iterative lexical optimization according to the feedback from a batch of proxy tasks, using a search strategy related to word influence. Experiments show that even widely-used human-crafted prompts for current benchmarks suffer from the lexical sensitivity of models, and COPLE recovers the declined model ability in both instruct-following and solving downstream tasks.