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
Found in Translation: Measuring Multilingual LLM Consistency as Simple as Translate then Evaluate
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Zoom In Disparities in Healthcare LLM Q&A
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.