Extending Item Response Theory for Efficient and Meaningful Multilingual Evaluation

Multilingual Large Language Models (mLLMs) leaderboards report per-language accuracy but rarely explain why disparities emerge, leaving systemic biases unattributed and offering practitioners no actionable levers. We first establish that these gaps are systematic rather than artifacts of sampling noise via distribution-free Friedman and Kruskal--Wallis tests, then introduce a two-step Bayesian hierarchical framework that decomposes multilingual performance variance into interpretable components. First, isolating the variance attributable to language identity, we show that observable language features (script, family, typological distance) explain $R^2_{\text{ling}} = 79\%$ of this variance on understanding tasks and $92\%$ on reasoning, with a model's internal representational similarity to English emerging as the dominant predictor across both task buckets. Second, decomposing the full (model$\times$benchmark$\times$language) cube, we find that NLU and reasoning have fundamentally divergent variance profiles: model identity dominates understanding ($66.7\%$ of variance), whereas the benchmark$\times$model interaction dominates reasoning ($46.3\%$). Together these results recast multilingual evaluation from passive performance mapping into an explainable, diagnostic framework with concrete levers for targeting the root drivers of language disparity.

Evaluating the multilingual and multicultural capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for their global utility. However, current benchmarks face three critical limitations: (1) fragmented evaluation dimensions that often neglect deep cultural nuances; (2) insufficient language coverage in subjective tasks relying on low-quality machine translation; and (3) shallow analysis that lacks diagnostic depth beyond simple rankings. To address these, we introduce GaoYao, a comprehensive benchmark with 182.3k samples, 26 languages and 51 nations/areas. First, GaoYao proposes a unified framework categorizing evaluation tasks into three cultural layers (General Multilingual, Cross-cultural, Monocultural) and nine cognitive sub-layers. Second, we achieve native-quality expansion by leveraging experts to rigorously localize subjective benchmarks into 19 languages and synthesizing cross-cultural test sets for 34 cultures, surpassing prior coverage by up to 111%. Third, we conduct an in-depth diagnostic analysis on 20+ flagship and compact LLMs. Our findings reveal significant geographical performance disparities and distinct gaps between tasks, offering a reliable map for future work. We release the benchmark (https://github.com/lunyiliu/GaoYao).

Multilingual LLMs are increasingly used when instruction, source content, and required response languages do not coincide. Existing benchmarks have expanded multilingual instruction-following evaluation, but they rarely isolate these three roles within a fully crossed design. We introduce MTM-Bench, a controlled benchmark for language-conditioned task execution in which each instance is defined by a triplet $(L_{\text{instr}}, L_{\text{content}}, L_{\text{resp}})$. Across English, Spanish, and Chinese, MTM-Bench enumerates all 27 triplets and contains 2{,}430 instances per model across semantic reversal, final-state extraction, and language purity with update realization. We evaluate 20 frontier and open-weight LLMs using decomposed metrics for semantic correctness, target-language adherence, constraint satisfaction, contamination ratio, and joint success, with scoring validated by a targeted human audit. The fully crossed design reveals that degradation is organized by the role a language occupies in the task structure, not merely by mismatch count. The response-language role is the dominant axis of variation, and a single response-slot mismatch accounts for most degradation. The response-only and full-mismatch comparison suggests that mismatch count is not a monotonic predictor of difficulty, with model-level ordering varying across systems. Task families fail through distinct channels, showing that semantic correctness alone does not capture reliable multilingual task execution.