REVIEW 3 cited by
MM-Eval: A Multilingual Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM-as-a-Judge and Reward Models
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
read the original abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are now capable of producing fluent and coherent content in languages other than English, it is not imperative to precisely evaluate these non-English outputs. However, when assessing the outputs from mutlilingual LLMs, prior works often employed LLM based evaluators that excel at assessing English outputs, without a thorough examination of whether these evaluators could effectively assess non-English text as well. Moreover, existing benchmarks to test evaluator LLMs (referred to as "meta-evaluation benchmarks") are mostly English-centric. To bridge this gap and examine whether evaluator LLMs can reliably assess the outputs of multilingual LLMs, we introduce MM-Eval, a multilingual meta-evaluation benchmark comprising five core subsets covering 18 languages and a Language Consistency subset spanning 122 languages. A core attribute of MM-Eval is that, instead of merely translating existing English meta-evaluation benchmarks, it is designed with multilingual-specific challenges in mind. Additionally, unlike existing meta-evaluation benchmarks that focus solely on ranking accuracy over pairwise data, MM-Eval also evaluates the consistency and fairness of absolute score values across a wide range of languages. Our results show that existing evaluator LLMs that excel in English contexts have considerable room for improvement when assessing non-English outputs. Furthermore, we find that evaluators are unfair and inconsistent when evaluating lower-resourced languages. Finally, we validate MM-Eval by measuring its correlation with Best-of-N rankings, finding a significantly stronger correlation compared to other meta-evaluation benchmarks. We publicly release our benchmark and code.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models
The authors construct a 1,026-case medical benchmark with doctor preference labels across six quality dimensions and show current multimodal LLMs, including medical-specific ones, are only moderately aligned with expe...
-
IMPACT: Inflectional Morphology Probes Across Complex Typologies
LLMs are systematically worse at judging ungrammatical inflectional morphology than at recognizing grammatical examples, and chain-of-thought prompting does not reliably fix this.
-
Controlling Language Confusion in Multilingual LLMs
ORPO fine-tuning, which explicitly penalizes disfavored language-mixed responses, nearly eliminates language confusion in Korean-generation LLMs without hurting QA accuracy.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.