While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into in-vehicle conversational systems, identifying the optimal model remains challenging due to the lack of domain-specific evaluation standards tailored to real-world deployment requirements. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework for in-vehicle assistants, with a particular focus on Korean-language localization. Our empirical analysis reveals notable patterns in model behavior. First, fine-grained Korean honorific control remains unstable in current LLMs, indicating that precise speech-level realization must be explicitly evaluated in localization settings. Second, models exhibit weaker performance in strategic conversational metrics like clarification and proactivity. Our analysis suggests this stems from the inherent subjective complexity of these tasks, where our framework adopts a conservative evaluation stance to prioritize reliability. Together, our findings underscore that automotive AI must move beyond general competence toward precise linguistic tailoring and reliable, safety-oriented interaction management.

Evaluating text generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, particularly for low-resource languages where methods for direct assessment are scarce. We propose MUG-Eval, a novel framework that evaluates LLMs’ multilingual generation capabilities by transforming existing benchmarks into conversational tasks and measuring the LLMs’ accuracies on those tasks. We specifically designed these conversational tasks to require effective communication in the target language. Then, we simply use task success rate as a proxy for successful conversation generation. Our approach offers two key advantages: it is independent of language-specific NLP tools or annotated datasets, which are limited for most languages, and it does not rely on LLMs-as-judges, whose evaluation quality degrades outside a few high-resource languages. We evaluate 8 LLMs across 30 languages spanning high, mid, and low-resource categories, and we find that MUG-Eval correlates strongly with established benchmarks (r > 0.75) while enabling standardized comparisons across languages and models. Our framework provides a robust and resource-efficient solution for evaluating multilingual generation that can be extended to thousands of languages.

Content moderation platforms concentrate resources on English content despite serving predominantly non-English speaking users.Also, given the scarcity of native moderators for low-resource languages, non-native moderators must bridge this gap in moderation tasks such as hate speech moderation.Through a user study, we identify that non-native moderators struggle with understanding culturally-specific knowledge, sentiment, and internet culture in the hate speech.To assist non-native moderators, we present LLM-C3MOD, a human-LLM collaborative pipeline with three steps: (1) RAG-enhanced cultural context annotations; (2) initial LLM-based moderation; and (3) targeted human moderation for cases lacking LLM consensus.Evaluated on Korean hate speech dataset with Indonesian and German participants, our system achieves 78% accuracy (surpassing GPT-4o’s 71% baseline) while reducing human workload by 83.6%.In addition, cultural context annotations improved non-native moderator accuracy from 22% to 61%, with humans notably excelling at nuanced tasks where LLMs struggle.Our findings demonstrate that non-native moderators, when properly supported by LLMs, can effectively contribute to cross-cultural hate speech moderation.