PARIKSHA: A Large-Scale Investigation of Human-LLM Evaluator Agreement on Multilingual and Multi-Cultural Data
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
WWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization
Wang, H., Xia, Z., Chen, Z., & Chen, B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20661
- 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
- arXiv
- 2406.15053
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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