@inproceedings{ziems-etal-2025-culture,
    title = "Culture Cartography: Mapping the Landscape of Cultural Knowledge",
    author = "Ziems, Caleb  and
      Held, William Barr  and
      Yu, Jane  and
      Goldberg, Amir  and
      Grusky, David  and
      Yang, Diyi",
    editor = "Christodoulopoulos, Christos  and
      Chakraborty, Tanmoy  and
      Rose, Carolyn  and
      Peng, Violet",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = nov,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Suzhou, China",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-emnlp/2025.emnlp-main.91/",
    pages = "1739--1757",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-332-6",
    abstract = "To serve global users safely and productively, LLMs need culture-specific knowledge that might not be learned during pre-training. How do we find knowledge that is (1) salient to in-group users, but (2) unknown to LLMs? The most common solutions are single-initiative: either researchers define challenging questions that users passively answer (traditional annotation), or users actively produce data that researchers structure as benchmarks (knowledge extraction). The process would benefit from mixed-initiative collaboration, where users guide the process to meaningfully reflect their cultures, and LLMs steer the process to meet the researcher{'}s goals. We propose CultureCartography as a methodology that operationalizes this mixed-initiative vision. Here, an LLM initializes annotation with questions for which it has low-confidence answers, making explicit both its prior knowledge and the gaps therein. This allows a human respondent to fill these gaps and steer the model towards salient topics through direct edits. We implement Culture Cartography as a tool called Culture Explorer. Compared to a baseline where humans answer LLM-proposed questions, we find that Culture Explorer more effectively produces knowledge that strong models like DeepSeek R1, Llama-4 and GPT-4o are missing, even with web search. Fine-tuning on this data boosts the accuracy of Llama models by up to 19.2{\%} on related culture benchmarks."
}