arXiv:2607. 02235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for many natural language generation tasks, due to shortcomings of conventional metrics and high correlations with human judgment, albeit mostly in English.
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
The study investigates how different prompting strategies affect large language model (LLM) judges across multiple languages and tasks. Using a benchmark of 9 prompting strategies, 4 open-weight judges, 27 languages, and 4 tasks, the authors collected over 1 million pointwise scores validated against human judgments. Results show that prompting effectiveness is highly dependent on the judge model, can reverse direction across judges, and becomes less stable in low‑resource languages, indicating that prompt choice must be tailored to the specific evaluation setting.
The paper audits 51 recent multilingual evaluation benchmarks covering 242 datasets and 219 languages, focusing on coverage, representativeness, and rigor. It finds that while coverage is broad, many languages appear in only one benchmark and entire regions are underrepresented; low‑resource languages face a task equity gap. Representativeness is compromised by heavy reliance on English translations, and rigor is weakened by benchmark contamination and parallel‑corpus overlap. The authors propose concrete recommendations for building evaluation frameworks that are natively constructed, culturally grounded, contamination‑aware, and community‑aligned.
The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.
Multilingual evaluation benchmarks are the primary instrument for assessing whether large language models generalize beyond English, yet the adequacy of these benchmarks has received little systematic...
The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
arXiv:2607.00890v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Open web-scale pre-training corpora remain concentrated in English, limiting multilingual LLM development. We introduce MultiSynt/MT, an open synth...
Open web-scale pre-training corpora remain concentrated in English, limiting multilingual LLM development. We introduce MultiSynt/MT, an open synthetic parallel corpus with approximately 4.
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
arXiv:2602.14488v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: IR in low-resource languages remains limited by the scarcity of high-quality, task-specific annotated datasets. Manual annotation is expensiv...