MultiNRC: A Challenging and Native Multilingual Reasoning Evaluation Benchmark for LLMs
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved pith:2TYANLBBrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Although recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown rapid improvement on reasoning benchmarks in English, the evaluation of such LLMs' multilingual reasoning capability across diverse languages and cultural contexts remains limited. Existing multilingual reasoning benchmarks are typically constructed by translating existing English reasoning benchmarks, biasing these benchmarks towards reasoning problems with context in English language/cultures. In this work, we introduce the Multilingual Native Reasoning Challenge (MultiNRC), a benchmark designed to assess LLMs on more than 1,000 native, linguistic and culturally grounded reasoning questions written by native speakers in French, Spanish, and Chinese. MultiNRC covers four core reasoning categories: language-specific linguistic reasoning, wordplay & riddles, cultural/tradition reasoning, and math reasoning with cultural relevance. For cultural/tradition reasoning and math reasoning with cultural relevance, we also provide English equivalent translations of the multilingual questions by manual translation from native speakers fluent in English. This set of English equivalents can provide a direct comparison of LLM reasoning capacity in other languages vs. English on the same reasoning questions. We systematically evaluate current 14 leading LLMs covering most LLM families on MultiNRC and its English equivalent set. The results show that (1) current LLMs are still not good at native multilingual reasoning, with none scoring above 50% on MultiNRC; (2) LLMs exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses in handling linguistic, cultural, and logical reasoning tasks; (3) Most models perform substantially better in math reasoning in English compared to in original languages (+10%), indicating persistent challenges with culturally grounded knowledge.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
SFBench: The SciFy Scientific Feasibility Benchmark
SFBench provides 197 expert-created materials science claims with feasibility scores and explanations to evaluate AI systems on scientific feasibility assessment.
-
CultureForest: Understanding and Evaluating Cultural Norm Grounded Reasoning in LLMs
CultureForest benchmark shows top LLMs degrade sharply on open-ended cultural reasoning tasks, exhibit regional disparities, and are limited more by effective use of knowledge than by lack of knowledge itself.
-
CulturALL: Benchmarking Multilingual and Multicultural Competence of LLMs on Grounded Tasks
CulturALL is a new benchmark where even the best LLMs reach only 44.48% accuracy on grounded multilingual and multicultural tasks.
-
CroCo: Cross-Lingual Contrastive Preference Tuning on Self-Generations
CroCo applies English-reward-ranked self-generations for contrastive preference tuning that improves two LLMs on structured and open-ended tasks across 14 languages without language-specific annotations.
-
The Periodic Table of LLM Reasoning: A Structured Survey of Reasoning Paradigms, Methods, and Failure Modes
A literature survey that introduces a taxonomy for LLM reasoning paradigms, analyzes methodological trends, and synthesizes failure modes from over 300 papers.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.