When Similar Means Different: Evaluating LLMs on Arabic--Hebrew Cognates

The cost of human expert evaluation is a principal bottleneck to deploying language models in specialized, high-stakes domains. This is particularly acute for Arabic sociolinguistic knowledge: credible grading requires not only linguistic fluency but deep cultural familiarity that cannot be approximated by surface-level metrics. We address this with a cross-evaluation framework instantiated on two underrepresented Arabic dialect communities: Egyptian and Iraqi Arabic. We contribute 103 validated prompt-rubric pairs (70 Egyptian, 33 Iraqi; 53 Cultural, 50 Linguistic), authored and graded by native-speaker SMEs using penalty-weighted rubrics distinguishing positive content requirements from answer-specific negative error criteria. Three frontier LLMs serve as target models (graded by human SMEs across 302 unique prompt-response pairs), while five frontier LLMs serve as automated judges enforcing a provider-level self-evaluation guard. A dual-metric scheme combining Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) with Signed Mean Error separates directional grading bias from symmetric noise. Across 1,307 judge evaluations: GPT-5.4 is the most reliable judge (MADj = 10.21 pp, Signed Error = -1.12%); four of five judges show systematic leniency (+2.01% to +6.56%); Cultural tasks are harder to grade than Linguistic tasks for all judges (MAD gap 1.83-4.78 pp); and models substantially outperform on Egyptian prompts compared to Iraqi prompts. However, given leniency differences between Iraqi and Egyptian SMEs, we cannot solely attribute this gap to model knowledge. We therefore emphasize findings that do not assume identical leniency across human graders. Across all samples, implicit cultural reasoning -- requiring models to simulate native-speaker judgment rather than rely on lexical verification -- emerges as the primary failure mode for automated grading across all judge models.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in natural language generation, but remain susceptible to hallucination. In response to growing concerns about hallucinations, several benchmarks have been developed, primarily in English and Chinese. However, Arabic remains underrepresented, with limited benchmarks for LLMs hallucination due to scarce annotated resources and the language's morphological complexity. Consequently, existing benchmarks do not adequately reflect the linguistic, cultural, and reasoning characteristics of Arabic. To address this gap, we introduce HalluScore, a structured Arabic question answering benchmark designed to evaluate hallucination behavior in LLMs across different levels of reasoning difficulty, various knowledge domains, historical timelines, and culturally grounded Arabic scenarios. It contains 827 carefully curated questions for evaluating, detecting, and mitigating hallucination in LLMs. The dataset was constructed through a structured pipeline involving quality assurance, filtering for clarity and factual validity, and model-driven selection to retain questions that consistently trigger hallucinations. Each question is linked to verified ground-truth evidence, answer explanations, and multi-label annotations. Using the HalluScore benchmark, we conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis of hallucination patterns across 17 Arabic, multilingual, and reasoning LLMs. Moreover, we provide high-quality human annotations identifying hallucinated, non-hallucinated, and partially hallucinated responses of all evaluated LLMs. These results suggest that hallucination in Arabic LLMs extends beyond factual inaccuracies, encompassing challenges related to cultural understanding, linguistic reasoning, and logical consistency. We release HalluScore to support future research on improving the reliability and cultural competence of LLMs in Arabic.

There is a significant gap in evaluating cultural reasoning in LLMs using conversational datasets that capture culturally rich and dialectal contexts. Most Arabic benchmarks focus on short text snippets in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), overlooking the cultural nuances that naturally arise in dialogues. To address this gap, we introduce ArabCulture-Dialogue, a culturally grounded conversational dataset covering 13 Arabic-speaking countries, in both MSA and each country's respective dialect, spanning 12 daily-life topics and 54 fine-grained subtopics. We utilize the dataset to form three benchmarking tasks: (i) multiple-choice cultural reasoning, (ii) machine translation between MSA and dialects, and (iii) dialect-steering generation. Our experiments indicate that the performance gap between MSA and Arabic dialects still exists, whereby the models perform worse on all three tasks in the dialectal setup, compared to the MSA one.