PreprintCited by 19Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

PARIKSHA: A Large-Scale Investigation of Human-LLM Evaluator Agreement on Multilingual and Multi-Cultural Data

Open access
Watts, Ishaan, Gumma, Varun, Yadavalli, Aditya, Seshadri, Vivek, Swaminathan, Manohar, Sitaram, Sunayana·2024·arXiv

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.15053

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pairwise evaluation of LLM outputs yields higher inter-rater agreement and greater robustness than absolute scores.

    “Prior studies (Zheng et al., 2023; Chiang et al., 2024; Watts et al., 2024) demonstrate that pairwise evaluation of LLM outputs yields higher inter-rater agreement and greater robustness, making it a more reliable way to distinguish between competing responses.”

    From WWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization (2026) · cites this paper as Watts et al., 2024

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watts, I., Gumma, V., Yadavalli, A., Seshadri, V., Swaminathan, M., & Sitaram, S.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
7900-7932
OpenAlex
W4404782844
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
FWCI
4.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
multilingual large language models, LLM evaluation, Indo-Aryan languages, cross-lingual transfer, evaluation bias, pairwise comparison, direct assessment, benchmark contamination, Bengali language, Odia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review