Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Found in Translation: Measuring Multilingual LLM Consistency as Simple as Translate then Evaluate

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 2505.21999 v1 pith:2TNBA5VS submitted 2025-05-28 cs.CL

Found in Translation: Measuring Multilingual LLM Consistency as Simple as Translate then Evaluate

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

Large language models (LLMs) provide detailed and impressive responses to queries in English. However, are they really consistent at responding to the same query in other languages? The popular way of evaluating for multilingual performance of LLMs requires expensive-to-collect annotated datasets. Further, evaluating for tasks like open-ended generation, where multiple correct answers may exist, is nontrivial. Instead, we propose to evaluate the predictability of model response across different languages. In this work, we propose a framework to evaluate LLM's cross-lingual consistency based on a simple Translate then Evaluate strategy. We instantiate this evaluation framework along two dimensions of consistency: information and empathy. Our results reveal pronounced inconsistencies in popular LLM responses across thirty languages, with severe performance deficits in certain language families and scripts, underscoring critical weaknesses in their multilingual capabilities. These findings necessitate cross-lingual evaluations that are consistent along multiple dimensions. We invite practitioners to use our framework for future multilingual LLM benchmarking.

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. Zoom In Disparities in Healthcare LLM Q&A

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0

    Health Q&A chatbots align their answers with English Wikipedia even for non-English prompts, and injecting a non-English Wikipedia excerpt at query time shifts answers toward local references.