REVIEW 2 cited by
Better to Ask in English: Evaluation of Large Language Models on English, Low-resource and Cross-Lingual Settings
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Better to Ask in English: Evaluation of Large Language Models on English, Low-resource and Cross-Lingual Settings
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on massive amounts of data, enabling their application across diverse domains and tasks. Despite their remarkable performance, most LLMs are developed and evaluated primarily in English. Recently, a few multi-lingual LLMs have emerged, but their performance in low-resource languages, especially the most spoken languages in South Asia, is less explored. To address this gap, in this study, we evaluate LLMs such as GPT-4, Llama 2, and Gemini to analyze their effectiveness in English compared to other low-resource languages from South Asia (e.g., Bangla, Hindi, and Urdu). Specifically, we utilized zero-shot prompting and five different prompt settings to extensively investigate the effectiveness of the LLMs in cross-lingual translated prompts. The findings of the study suggest that GPT-4 outperformed Llama 2 and Gemini in all five prompt settings and across all languages. Moreover, all three LLMs performed better for English language prompts than other low-resource language prompts. This study extensively investigates LLMs in low-resource language contexts to highlight the improvements required in LLMs and language-specific resources to develop more generally purposed NLP applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
MediQAl: A French Medical Question Answering Dataset for Knowledge and Reasoning Evaluation
MediQAl is a new French medical QA benchmark with 32k exam-sourced questions in three formats and cognitive labels, evaluated on 14 LLMs to reveal gaps between factual recall and reasoning performance.
-
The Language of Bargaining: Linguistic Effects in LLM Negotiations
Language labels shift LLM negotiation outcomes in three games, but the claimed dominance over model choice is inconsistent with the reported model-level gaps.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.