Ishaan Watts

Sanchit Ahuja, Divyanshu Aggarwal, Varun Gumma et al. · cmu, deepmind

There has been a surge in LLM evaluation research to understand LLM capabilities and limitations. However, much of this research has been confined to English, leaving LLM building and evaluation for non-English languages relatively unexplored. Several new LLMs have been introduced recently, necessitating their evaluation on non-English languages. This study aims to perform a thorough evaluation of the non-English capabilities of SoTA LLMs (GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, PaLM2, Gemini-Pro, Mistral, Llama2, and Gemma) by comparing them on the same set of multilingual datasets. Our benchmark comprises 22 datasets covering 83 languages, including low-resource African languages. We also include two multimodal datasets in the benchmark and compare the performance of LLaVA models, GPT-4-Vision and Gemini-Pro-Vision. Our experiments show that larger models such as GPT-4, Gemini-Pro and PaLM2 outperform smaller models on various tasks, notably on low-resource languages, with GPT-4 outperforming PaLM2 and Gemini-Pro on more datasets. We also perform a study on data contamination and find that several models are likely to be contaminated with multilingual evaluation benchmarks, necessitating approaches to detect and handle contamination while assessing the multilingual performance of LLMs.

Ishaan Watts, Varun Gumma, Aditya Yadavalli et al.

Evaluation of multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) is challenging due to a variety of factors -- the lack of benchmarks with sufficient linguistic diversity, contamination of popular benchmarks into LLM pre-training data and the lack of local, cultural nuances in translated benchmarks. In this work, we study human and LLM-based evaluation in a multilingual, multi-cultural setting. We evaluate 30 models across 10 Indic languages by conducting 90K human evaluations and 30K LLM-based evaluations and find that models such as GPT-4o and Llama-3 70B consistently perform best for most Indic languages. We build leaderboards for two evaluation settings - pairwise comparison and direct assessment and analyze the agreement between humans and LLMs. We find that humans and LLMs agree fairly well in the pairwise setting but the agreement drops for direct assessment evaluation especially for languages such as Bengali and Odia. We also check for various biases in human and LLM-based evaluation and find evidence of self-bias in the GPT-based evaluator. Our work presents a significant step towards scaling up multilingual evaluation of LLMs.