Made in Hungary: Comments on the performance of generative language models

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) across languages remains challenging, as most multilingual benchmarks rely on translated English datasets, often obscuring linguistic and cultural specificity in the target language. This issue is particularly pronounced for less-resourced languages such as Kyrgyz, where reliable natively authored evaluation data are scarce. Building on previously introduced Kyrgyz-language evaluation datasets, this work reports the first systematic and large-scale evaluation of LLMs in Kyrgyz using the KyrgyzLLM-Bench benchmark suite. KyrgyzLLM-Bench comprises two natively authored datasets$-$KyrgyzMMLU and KyrgyzRC$-$together with carefully translated and manually post-edited versions of WinoGrande, HellaSwag, BoolQ, and TruthfulQA. We evaluate 26 open- and closed-source LLMs under zero-shot and few-shot settings, analyzing model performance, cross-lingual transfer, and the impact of translation artifacts on evaluation reliability. Across families and tasks, model rankings transfer broadly from English to Kyrgyz on WinoGrande and BoolQ, and to a lesser extent on MMLU, while HellaSwag exhibits a substantial English-Kyrgyz performance gap consistent with translation-induced plausibility shifts. Few-shot prompting improves several open-source models on reading comprehension but behaves inconsistently for proprietary models on translated tasks. We publicly release all datasets, evaluation code, and per-model results, and integrate the Kyrgyz tasks into a widely used multilingual evaluation framework to support future research on Kyrgyz NLP.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized language modeling through autoregressive generation, enabling strong performance across a wide range of tasks. Recently, Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) have emerged as an alternative paradigm that generates text through iterative denoising rather than next-token prediction, allowing parallel refinement of entire sequences. While numerous diffusion-based architectures have been proposed, differences in evaluation protocols, datasets, inference budgets, and generation hyperparameters make it difficult to compare their capabilities and understand the trade-offs they offer. In this work, we present a systematic experimental analysis of modern DLMs. Specifically, we evaluate eight state-of-the-art DLMs across eight benchmarks spanning reasoning, coding, translation, knowledge, and structured problem solving, while explicitly considering both generation quality and computational efficiency. Beyond downstream evaluation, we analyze the impact of key inference-time factors, including denoising steps, context length, block size, and parallel unmasking strategies, and complement large-scale experiments with controlled comparisons of smaller models trained under identical conditions. Our analysis highlights the strengths and limitations of diffusion-based language modeling across different tasks, architectures, and inference budgets. We show that the behavior of DLMs is strongly influenced by generation-time design choices, leading to distinct trade-offs between performance and computational efficiency. Overall, our study provides practical insights into the capabilities and deployment characteristics of contemporary DLMs.

Evaluations of language-model honesty read the model's verdicts as evidence about the model. We test the instrument instead. We built a text-adventure world where the game engine, not any model, knows whether the quest can be completed. A language model plays under a budget and must eventually declare its quest complete, unreachable, or not yet decidable; the engine scores every verdict. Decision rules were recorded before results were read, and run artifacts bind the revisions they executed; the strength of preregistration varies by series and is disclosed. With the player held fixed, instrument choices substantially changed measured behavior. On four byte-identical anchors, expanding a two-verdict grammar to three verdicts moved strong claims from 38/40 to 7/40, while the new incomplete verdict took 28/40 outcomes; across series 2, 93/158 valid games ended incomplete. One sentence disclosing the success criterion took matched-instance false verdicts from 18/59 to 0/58, through fewer decision points and cleaner decisions. Repeated runs of one fixed configuration produced non-stable verdict distributions on 3 of 4 instances: single runs report samples as dispositions. A formally preregistered narrative-register gradient was falsified; two post-hoc, hypothesis-generating patterns remain: register presence roughly doubled strong claims, and budget rendering moved verdicts more than register content (.383 meter vs .150 lantern). The narrator compressed abundant budgets toward scarcity landmarks, yet the registered mediation test returned a null. We propose a four-check integrity protocol for eval instruments.