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.
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...
arXiv:2608. 13695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users.
arXiv:2609.25298v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cultural evaluation coverage and robustness in language models are difficult to diagnose because pretraining corpora and cultural benchmarks are rarely...
arXiv:2609.23490v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly execute multi-step workflows through tool use and interaction with users and environments. However, curr...
arXiv:2607. 20241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Culturally loaded translation poses unique challenges for machine translation (MT), as meanings are deeply embedded in socio-cultural contexts beyond surface linguistic forms.
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.
arXiv:2410. 07809v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multilingual instruction tuning (MIT) is challenged by the curse of multilinguality, data scarcity, and high computational cost.
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...
arXiv:2604. 18347v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision Language Models (VLMs) achieved rapid progress in the recent years.
The study examines how multilingual large language models (LLMs) produce outputs that differ across sociocultural contexts, highlighting that identity labels and source-language cues can mislead assessments of cultural grounding. Using a human‑validated, multi‑agent audit on 89,253 outputs from 12 LLMs in English, French, and Chinese across 18 occupations and three task conditions, the authors find that bias representation varies systematically by language and task. Removing direct identity cues reduces identity‑label prediction in English and Chinese but not in French, and the source language’s cultural context consistently receives the highest relevance score, though this signal weakens after translation or name masking. "whyItMatters":"The findings show that surface cues can obscure true cross‑cultural patterns, underscoring the need for careful audit designs to avoid misleading conclusions about bias in multilingual LLMs."
arXiv:2609.06634v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs' performance on machine translation (MT) tasks is often dependent on the data availability in the specific domains and language pairs that they...
arXiv:2608. 11002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Text-to-image (T2I) generation has achieved remarkable progress in recent years.