Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

M-IFEval: Multilingual Instruction-Following Evaluation

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

arxiv 2502.04688 v1 pith:UIAF64RL submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CL cs.AI

M-IFEval: Multilingual Instruction-Following Evaluation

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords benchmarkevaluationinstructionllmsfollowingmultilingualcapabilityevaluating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Instruction following is a core capability of modern Large language models (LLMs), making evaluating this capability essential to understanding these models. The Instruction Following Evaluation (IFEval) benchmark from the literature does this using objective criteria, offering a measure of LLM performance without subjective AI or human judgement. However, it only includes English instructions, limiting its ability to assess LLMs in other languages. We propose the Multilingual Instruction Following Evaluation (M-IFEval) benchmark, expanding the evaluation to French, Japanese, and Spanish, with both general and language-specific instructions. Applying this benchmark to 8 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that benchmark performance across languages and instruction types can vary widely, underscoring the importance of a multilingual benchmark for evaluating LLMs in a diverse cultural context.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Inverse IFEval: Can LLMs Unlearn Stubborn Training Conventions to Follow Real Instructions?

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new 1,012-question benchmark shows LLMs often fail instructions that deliberately invert common training conventions, revealing a measurable gap in counterintuitive instruction following.