Fabio Barth

Jason Alan Fries, Leon Weber, Natasha Seelam et al. · stanford, utoronto

Training and evaluating language models increasingly requires the construction of meta-datasets --diverse collections of curated data with clear provenance. Natural language prompting has recently lead to improved zero-shot generalization by transforming existing, supervised datasets into a diversity of novel pretraining tasks, highlighting the benefits of meta-dataset curation. While successful in general-domain text, translating these data-centric approaches to biomedical language modeling remains challenging, as labeled biomedical datasets are significantly underrepresented in popular data hubs. To address this challenge, we introduce BigBIO a community library of 126+ biomedical NLP datasets, currently covering 12 task categories and 10+ languages. BigBIO facilitates reproducible meta-dataset curation via programmatic access to datasets and their metadata, and is compatible with current platforms for prompt engineering and end-to-end few/zero shot language model evaluation. We discuss our process for task schema harmonization, data auditing, contribution guidelines, and outline two illustrative use cases: zero-shot evaluation of biomedical prompts and large-scale, multi-task learning. BigBIO is an ongoing community effort and is available at https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/biomedical

Mehdi Ali, Michael Fromm, Klaudia Thellmann et al.

We present two multilingual LLMs, Teuken 7B-base and Teuken 7B-instruct, designed to embrace Europe's linguistic diversity by supporting all 24 official languages of the European Union. Trained on a dataset comprising around 60% non-English data and utilizing a custom multilingual tokenizer, our models address the limitations of existing LLMs that predominantly focus on English or a few high-resource languages. We detail the models' development principles, i.e., data composition, tokenizer optimization, and training methodologies. The models demonstrate strong performance across multilingual benchmarks, as evidenced by their performance on European versions of ARC, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA.

Klaudia Thellmann, Bernhard Stadler, Michael Fromm et al.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized natural language processing across numerous languages and tasks. However, evaluating LLM performance in a consistent and meaningful way across multiple European languages remains challenging, especially due to the scarcity of language-parallel multilingual benchmarks. We introduce a multilingual evaluation approach tailored for European languages. We employ translated versions of five widely-used benchmarks to assess the capabilities of 40 LLMs across 21 European languages. Our contributions include examining the effectiveness of translated benchmarks, assessing the impact of different translation services, and offering a multilingual evaluation framework for LLMs that includes newly created datasets: EU20-MMLU, EU20-HellaSwag, EU20-ARC, EU20-TruthfulQA, and EU20-GSM8K. The benchmarks and results are made publicly available to encourage further research in multilingual LLM evaluation.

Raia Abu Ahmad, Nikolas Rauscher, Ekaterina Borisova et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

Jonas Golde, Patrick Haller, Fabio Barth et al.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have led to remarkable performance across a wide range of language understanding and mathematical tasks. As a result, increasing attention has been given to assessing the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs, driving research into commonsense, numerical, logical, and qualitative reasoning. However, with the rapid progress of reasoning-focused models such as OpenAI's o1 and DeepSeek's R1, there has been a growing demand for reasoning benchmarks that can keep pace with ongoing model developments. In this paper, we introduce MastermindEval, a simple, scalable, and interpretable deductive reasoning benchmark inspired by the board game Mastermind. Our benchmark supports two evaluation paradigms: (1) agentic evaluation, in which the model autonomously plays the game, and (2) deductive reasoning evaluation, in which the model is given a pre-played game state with only one possible valid code to infer. In our experimental results we (1) find that even easy Mastermind instances are difficult for current models and (2) demonstrate that the benchmark is scalable to possibly more advanced models in the future Furthermore, we investigate possible reasons why models cannot deduce the final solution and find that current models are limited in deducing the concealed code as the number of statement to combine information from is increasing.

Fabio Barth, Georg Rehm

The breakthrough of generative large language models (LLMs) that can solve different tasks through chat interaction has led to a significant increase in the use of general benchmarks to assess the quality or performance of these models beyond individual applications. There is also a need for better methods to evaluate and also to compare models due to the ever increasing number of new models published. However, most of the established benchmarks revolve around the English language. This paper analyses the benefits and limitations of current evaluation datasets, focusing on multilingual European benchmarks. We analyse seven multilingual benchmarks and identify four major challenges. Furthermore, we discuss potential solutions to enhance translation quality and mitigate cultural biases, including human-in-the-loop verification and iterative translation ranking. Our analysis highlights the need for culturally aware and rigorously validated benchmarks to assess the reasoning and question-answering capabilities of multilingual LLMs accurately.

Ekaterina Borisova, Fabio Barth, Nils Feldhus et al.

Tables are among the most widely used tools for representing structured data in research, business, medicine, and education. Although LLMs demonstrate strong performance in downstream tasks, their efficiency in processing tabular data remains underexplored. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of both text-based and multimodal LLMs on table understanding tasks through a cross-domain and cross-modality evaluation. Specifically, we compare their performance on tables from scientific vs. non-scientific contexts and examine their robustness on tables represented as images vs. text. Additionally, we conduct an interpretability analysis to measure context usage and input relevance. We also introduce the TableEval benchmark, comprising 3017 tables from scholarly publications, Wikipedia, and financial reports, where each table is provided in five different formats: Image, Dictionary, HTML, XML, and LaTeX. Our findings indicate that while LLMs maintain robustness across table modalities, they face significant challenges when processing scientific tables.

Georg Rehm, Annika Grützner-Zahn, Fabio Barth

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate unprecedented capabilities and define the state of the art for almost all natural language processing (NLP) tasks and also for essentially all Language Technology (LT) applications. LLMs can only be trained for languages for which a sufficient amount of pre-training data is available, effectively excluding many languages that are typically characterised as under-resourced. However, there is both circumstantial and empirical evidence that multilingual LLMs, which have been trained using data sets that cover multiple languages (including under-resourced ones), do exhibit strong capabilities for some of these under-resourced languages. Eventually, this approach may have the potential to be a technological off-ramp for those under-resourced languages for which "native" LLMs, and LLM-based technologies, cannot be developed due to a lack of training data. This paper, which concentrates on European languages, examines this idea, analyses the current situation in terms of technology support and summarises related work. The article concludes by focusing on the key open questions that need to be answered for the approach to be put into practice in a systematic way.

Jonas Golde, Patrick Haller, Max Ploner et al.

Zero-shot named entity recognition (NER) is the task of detecting named entities of specific types (such as 'Person' or 'Medicine') without any training examples. Current research increasingly relies on large synthetic datasets, automatically generated to cover tens of thousands of distinct entity types, to train zero-shot NER models. However, in this paper, we find that these synthetic datasets often contain entity types that are semantically highly similar to (or even the same as) those in standard evaluation benchmarks. Because of this overlap, we argue that reported F1 scores for zero-shot NER overestimate the true capabilities of these approaches. Further, we argue that current evaluation setups provide an incomplete picture of zero-shot abilities since they do not quantify the label shift (i.e., the similarity of labels) between training and evaluation datasets. To address these issues, we propose Familiarity, a novel metric that captures both the semantic similarity between entity types in training and evaluation, as well as their frequency in the training data, to provide an estimate of label shift. It allows researchers to contextualize reported zero-shot NER scores when using custom synthetic training datasets. Further, it enables researchers to generate evaluation setups of various transfer difficulties for fine-grained analysis of zero-shot NER.