Multilingual Language Model Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) can readily reproduce conventional expressions, yet their ability to model gradient frequency distributions remains underexplored. We investigate this using linguistic binomials, such as men and women, where both word permutations are grammatically valid but exhibit distinct, cross-linguistic variations in conventionality. We formalize binomial ordering as a distributional alignment problem, and construct a multilingual dataset of 600 binomial pairs across 8 languages. With categorical and distributional metrics, we measure and compare the corpus-derived preferences with model-induced ordering probabilities of 6 open-weight LLMs. While models often behaviorally recover the dominant corpus-preferred order, particularly for strongly conventionalized pairs, they align less well with the exact corpus preference distributions. This suggests that apparent directional order overstates how faithfully LLMs capture the statistical nuances of language use. Sparse probing verifies that the concept of preference strength is partially encoded among middle-to-late layers, and steering along probe-derived directions alters model-induced ordering distributions, demonstrating that the statistical behavioral preference of LLMs can be mechanistically measured and manipulated via internal representations.

We introduce the Meaning Intelligence Framework (MIF), a nine-dimension annotation and evaluation schema for Nigerian public discourse that separates surface sentiment from true communicative intent. Existing benchmarks for Nigerian languages, including NaijaSenti and AfriSenti, treat sentiment classification as a three-way polarity task. We argue that the dominant failure mode of AI systems on Nigerian discourse is not translation failure but context failure: the same utterance carries opposite pragmatic force depending on speaker, audience, and situation. The MIF operationalises this insight across nine scored dimensions: register, surface sentiment, true intent, irony, coded subtext, risk tier, annotator confidence, speaker emotion, and recommended communications action. We construct a 30-item calibration dataset spanning Standard English, Nigerian English, Nigerian Pidgin, and code-mixed registers, and evaluate three frontier language models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) under zero-shot and schema-informed prompting conditions. Two headline findings emerge. First, the Register Gap: zero-shot register classification accuracy is 33.3%, rising to 73.3% (+40 points) when the model receives the MIF schema in-context. Second, model capability and cultural competence are decoupled: GPT-5 (MIS 67.8) and Gemini 2.5 Pro (MIS 65.4) score lower than Flash (MIS 78.6), and neither benefits from schema-informed prompting. We release the framework specification, annotation guidelines, and calibration set to support reproducibility.

Language models have become essential tools in shaping modern workflows. However, their global effectiveness hinges on a nuanced understanding of local socio-cultural contexts. To address this gap, we present NRITYAM, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the cultural comprehension capabilities of language models in the context of global dance traditions. NRITYAM comprises 9,260 carefully curated question-answer pairs spanning 12 languages, making it the largest dataset dedicated to evaluating cultural knowledge in dance. The dataset has been developed from the ground up through close collaboration with native dance artists and native speakers of the languages, who authored and validated culturally relevant questions specific to their regions. We evaluate a broad set of models, including large language models, small language models, multimodal large language models, and small multimodal language models. As a multilingual and multicultural benchmark, NRITYAM sets a new standard for evaluating the ability of AI systems to understand and reason about traditional performing arts. Detailed dataset samples are available at~https://github.com/niladrighosh03/NRITYAM.

AI and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to address global mental health challenges. Despite the global nature of these challenges, there remains a critical shortage of high-quality datasets for training and evaluating such systems. To mitigate this gap, researchers increasingly generate synthetic clinical personas to simulate user data and test digital mental health support systems. However, most validated personas rely on English-centric contexts. This paper investigates whether similar persona-based methods can be used to generate multilingual mental health datasets. We modified nationality and language parameters in personas to generate clinical dialogues in Mandarin, Bengali, and Hindi. We then examined how different LLMs perform when evaluating the depression severity of these generated multilingual datasets against the baseline in English. Our findings indicate that just adding nationality and language parameters in personas might not be adequate, as it can introduce clinical inconsistency across languages. LLM judge models often exhibit inaccuracies in assessing depression severity in non-English texts, with performance varying across different models. This exposes the systemic limitations of applying English-centric personas to multilingual contexts. Ultimately, our work highlights the urgent need for culturally responsive data generation to ensure equitable mental health systems globally.

Idioms are difficult to transfer across languages due to their non-compositionality and weak surface-form grounding, making literal mappings unreliable. We present G-IdiomAlign, a gloss-pivoted benchmark where each idiom is anchored by an English gloss from Wiktionary. We further construct a high-confidence reference alignment set for reproducible evaluation. G-IdiomAlign supports two protocols: (1) a controlled Multiple-Choice Idiom Equivalence with typed distractors for error attribution; and (2) a Gloss-Contrastive Generation contrasting No-gloss and With-gloss inputs to isolate the effect of an explicit semantic pivot. Across diverse LLMs, a bias to literal translation is a dominant failure mode, especially when the target is a low-resource language. Glosses consistently improve Gloss-Contrastive Generation under an embedding-based semantic proxy, but performance remains modest, indicating substantial headroom in the open output space. Subsequent analysis on Qwen3-8B further suggests that cross-condition differences are concentrated more in attention heads than in layers, while better With-gloss generations coincide with stronger gloss anchoring.

Cross-lingual transfer in multilingual NLP has been widely explored in supervised fine-tuning contexts, where factors like data availability and linguistic similarity largely determine transfer quality. As the field shifts toward few-shot In-Context Learning (ICL), it is often presumed that insights from fine-tuning carry over unchanged. Yet this assumption has not been rigorously evaluated, leaving open the question of how to choose source languages for cross-lingual ICL. We conduct a broad empirical study of cross-lingual transfer in ICL spanning seven tasks, six models, and a typologically diverse set of languages. We further analyze language confusion, a key obstacle for generative tasks in cross-lingual ICL. Our results show that conventional fine-tuning-based expectations do not consistently apply in the ICL regime and point to alternative heuristics for selecting source languages effectively.

Large language models perform increasingly well on standardized logical reasoning benchmarks, but whether this ability remains robust beyond English is unclear. We introduce ChLogic, an English--Chinese aligned benchmark that tests whether models preserve logical reasoning performance when the same latent logical structure is expressed in English and diverse Chinese surface realizations. Built from formal logical templates, the benchmark contains three data sets: (i) the General aligned set, derived from 60 General Propositions across nine template families; (ii) the Difficult aligned set, derived from 40 Difficult Problems; and (iii) the Chinese-only set, covering 15 language-specific phenomenon types. Each aligned item pairs one English reference expression with five Chinese realizations. Experiments on Qwen3, Ministral, and GLM models reveal a persistent English--Chinese performance gap. Back-translation from standard Chinese into English often improves performance on the General aligned set, but produces mixed effects on the Difficult aligned set, where Qwen3-32B and GLM-5.1 perform worse after translation. These results indicate that Chinese surface realization, translation artifacts, and model-specific behavior jointly affect multilingual logical reasoning. Overall, ChLogic provides a useful stress test for the robustness of multilingual reasoning.

Long-form serialized audio drama, with arcs that run for 200 to 800 episodes, is a major creative medium and a setting where frontier large language models (LLMs) fail. We benchmark 21 models, spanning classical, fine-tuned, open-frontier, closed-frontier, and reasoning tiers, on a uniform set of structural narrative metrics. All closed-frontier systems saturate at a plot-beat F1 in the band [0.78, 0.81] and collapse by about -0.20 F1 at horizon h=200. We introduce NarrativeWorldBench, an open benchmark of nine narrative-structure metrics evaluated across horizons h in {10, 20, 50, 100, 200}, with cross-lingual evaluation across four Indic languages (Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi). We introduce N-VSSM, a Narrative Variational State-Space Model that maintains a structured 256-dimensional latent world state over more than 200 episodes via a Mamba-2 backbone with an event-conditioned posterior and an 8B decoder. N-VSSM holds plot-beat F1 >= 0.84 across all horizons at 4x lower compute than the closed-frontier band. A learned Cultural Transfer Function lifts cross-language fidelity by +0.20 to +0.23 Likert points. In a within-subjects writer study (n = 12 professional authors, 240 trials), N-VSSM is preferred over Claude Opus 4.5 on long-arc consistency 71% of the time and rated +1.3 Likert points higher on controllability.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become embedded in everyday communication, capturing regional linguistic variation is essential for reliable and equitable language use. In Portuguese, European (pt-PT) and Brazilian (pt-BR) varieties remain unevenly represented, with pt-BR dominating in data quantity, while LLM preference for Portuguese variants remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce P3B3, an expert-curated language variety agnostic benchmark of conversational prompts, along with an evaluation framework for measuring variety bias and controllability. Experiments on several models show that most LLMs exhibit a strong bias toward pt-BR, with variation in controllability across models. These results highlight the need for more balanced multilingual representation across language varieties.

Multilingual benchmarks are central to evaluating large language models (LLMs) across languages, but they suffer from three issues: exhaustive evaluation scales linearly with the number of languages, automatic translation introduces errors that are easily missed at scale, and some items conflate general and culture-specific knowledge. We address all three with a unified statistical framework, Multilingual-IRT, which extends Item Response Theory with per-language difficulty deviations, split discriminability separating content from language effects, and per-language ability residuals. Fitting Multilingual-IRT on 25 LLMs across 29 languages of MMLU-Pro-X, we show that its fitted parameters support three practical applications: predicting unobserved (item, LLM, language) instances with 11-16% lower binary cross-entropy than the strongest accuracy-based baseline, surfacing candidate translation errors distributed across all 28 non-English languages, whereas accuracy-based baselines concentrate detections in a few languages, and recovering culture-specific items that accuracy-based baselines miss.

Deep research agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to search for evidence, reason over retrieved sources, and produce grounded answers. Existing browsing benchmarks, however, largely assume that the user's query and the supporting evidence are written in the same language, leaving open whether agentic search systems can operate when relevant evidence appears in another language. We introduce XBCP (Cross-lingual BrowseComp-Plus), a controlled benchmark that preserves the English question-and-answer space of BrowseComp-Plus but varies the languages of the supporting documents. XBCP instantiates two complementary settings: in the cross-lingual setting, each query is paired with evidence in a single assigned language. In the multilingual setting, the full evidence corpus is distributed equally and randomly across 12 languages spanning high-resource and low-resource regimes. We evaluate four deep research agents using sparse and dense multilingual retrievers, measuring answer accuracy, evidence recall, search behavior, calibration, citation fidelity, and oracle retrieval. Results reveal substantial degradation when evidence is translated. Even strong, dense retrievers lose evidence recall, and agents become less calibrated and cite evidence less reliably. Notably, accuracy remains lower even when all gold evidence is supplied directly. These findings suggest that cross-lingual deep research exposes both retrieval failures and an independent, agent-side difficulty in integrating language-mismatched evidence.

Socio-cultural stereotypical bias is an important consideration in the development and deployment of NLP systems. It is however often considered only at the national level, despite rich subnational socio-cultural structures. We present AmchiBias, the first benchmark for measuring socio-cultural stereotypical bias for the Indian state of Goa with its unique historically multicultural setting. It covers various Goan identity groups and comprises 313 minimal pairs across eight sociodemographic dimensions in both English and Devanagari Konkani. We then evaluate stereotypical bias in five multilingual encoder models on this benchmark. We find near-chance scores in Konkani, reflecting language incompetence for general multilingual models and a lack of Goan cultural competence for Indian language models. Queried in English, models with a stronger Indian language coverage show higher bias for pan-Indian groups than hyperlocal Goan groups. This suggests the English signal reflects pan-Indian pretraining associations rather than genuine Goan cultural knowledge. Our findings highlight a critical gap in low-resource multilingual NLP evaluation for hyperlocal community identities.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used as automatic judges for open-ended instruction-following evaluation. This practice is convenient, scalable, and often more semantically aware than reference-based metrics, but it also introduces a new reliability question: does a judge evaluate the quality of an answer, or does it also react to the language in which the comparison is presented? We propose Judge-LS, a lightweight meta-evaluation protocol that transforms LLMBar response-pair items into English, Chinese, and Chinese-English language-switched variants. A reliable judge should preserve its preference under label-preserving language transformations and should not prefer a language when two answers are translation-equivalent. We evaluate four API-accessible judges on the full 419-item LLMBar benchmark, producing 13,408 successful pairwise judgments. Across models, Chinese and language-switched presentations induce 10.7--14.4% preference flips relative to English, and all judges achieve their highest accuracy in English. However, translation-equivalent tie probes do not reveal a systematic English preference: most probes are judged as ties, and non-tie decisions more often favor Chinese. We add confidence intervals, paired significance tests, and an automatic transformation audit with a sensitivity analysis that excludes mechanically flagged high-risk variants. The experiment requires no model training, uses only API calls, and is feasible on modest local hardware.

Arabic and Hebrew, as closely related Semitic languages, share many words with similar surface forms, including true cognates, false friends, and modern loanwords. These lexical relationships create ambiguity for cross-lingual semantic interpretation, as similar forms may correspond to shared, divergent, or borrowed meanings. To evaluate whether LLMs can make these distinctions, we introduce SemCog Bench, a curated benchmark of 1,858 Arabic--Hebrew word pairs with sentence-level annotations for cognate identification and semantic disambiguation. We evaluate a diverse set of open-source and proprietary LLMs across multiple input representations and contextual settings. Our results show reliance on surface-form similarity, with weaker performance on false friends and wide variation on loanwords. We further find that context and scale yield model-dependent gains, while original-script inputs generally perform best. Our findings reveal limitations in cross-lingual form-meaning reasoning and establish SemCog Bench as a benchmark for cross-lingual lexical semantics. Our code and data are publicly available.

We present MÖVE (Modelle für die Öffentliche Verwaltung Evaluieren), a holistic benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the context of the German public sector. While LLMs are increasingly adopted in public administration, model selection remains largely ad hoc, and existing benchmarks offer limited guidance: they are predominantly English-centric, US-centric in content, and focus exclusively on task performance. MÖVE addresses these gaps by evaluating 39 models across two complementary dimensions. Performance criteria cover summarization, question answering, and topic extraction. Governance criteria assess hallucination tendencies, energy consumption, provider transparency, and alignment with German constitutional values and knowledge about positions by German political parties. In total, we utilize ten German-language datasets, including gold- and silverstandard datasets that we constructed to reflect public-administration domains. We employ a multi-metric evaluation strategy combining classical NLP metrics, embedding-based methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our results show that no single model dominates across all criteria: top performers differ between tasks, and model size alone is a poor predictor of quality. We further evaluate the benchmark itself, analyzing its statistical precision, LLM judge reliability, the impact of our private datasets on model rankings, the sensitivity of our results to prompt formulation, and the validity of our energy consumption estimates. MÖVE is designed as a living benchmark under active development; results are publicly available at https://moeve.bundesdruckerei.de/.

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.

Despite their linguistic diversity and global significance, African languages remain underrepresented in research and resources to support NLP. We aim to bridge this gap by introducing AfriSUD, the first large-scale collection of syntactically annotated treebanks for nine diverse African languages spanning major language families and regions across Sub-Saharan Africa. Using the Surface-Syntactic Universal Dependencies (SUD) framework, our community-led effort provides high-quality, native-speaker verified data that capture typological key features such as agglutination and tone. We evaluate a range of models on AfriSUD for part-of-speech tagging and dependency parsing including non-transformer baselines, multilingual pretrained encoders, and LLMs. Our results reveal a significant syntax gap, where models still show clear limitations across the nine languages, suggesting that existing architectures may not fully capture the structural diversity of African-language syntax.

Large language models are increasingly deployed across professional domains, bringing hard-to-predict risks, including the generation of harmful or disrespectful content. Although substantial progress has been made in developing safety evaluation datasets, existing resources remain overwhelmingly English- and Chinese-centric. This limitation is particularly pronounced when evaluating languages that operate within shared sociocultural, legal, and ethical contexts. To address this gap, we introduce Schützen: a German--Bulgarian safety dataset designed to assess model answerability under risk, covering both a low-resource language (Bulgarian) and a high-resource language (German). Experiments with multilingual and language-specific LLMs reveal pronounced cross-language differences in safety behavior, highlighting the necessity of tailored, region-specific evaluation resources to support the responsible deployment of LLMs in Germany and Bulgaria. Datasets and code are available at https://github.com/xnlp-lab/Schutzen. Warning: this paper contains examples that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

This study investigates cross-lingual distributional skew (the Shibboleth Effect) in frontier large language models (LLMs) subjected to sustained adversarial conditions. We develop a multi-agent geopolitical wargame, the Cerulean Sea Crisis, a synthetic maritime territorial dispute designed to mirror the structural dynamics of Eastern Mediterranean conflicts. Six frontier models (GPT-4o, Llama-4, Mistral-Large, Gemini-3.1-Pro, Qwen3.6-Plus, and DeepSeek-R1) participate in a between-groups experiment (N = 10 games per arm, K = 5 rounds per game) in which the sole manipulation is the language of play (English versus Turkish), producing 586 validated statements. A zero-shot classifier assesses behavioral dispositions along two continuous dimensions: Concession Rate and Coercive Rhetoric. The results are heterogeneous. Llama-4 shows a substantial, Holm-corrected increase in coercive rhetoric under Turkish (delta = +0.800, p = .002), whereas Gemini-3.1-Pro displays an equally large decrease (delta = -0.750, p = .005). DeepSeek-R1 exhibits a similar negative shift (delta = -0.860, p = .006) and provides chain-of-thought evidence consistent with a buffering mechanism. GPT-4o shows no detectable effect (delta = +0.130, p = .614). These findings indicate that cross-lingual behavioral skew is contingent on model architecture and training regime rather than a universal property of Western-origin LLMs. We identify two distinct buffering mechanisms, chain-of-thought institutional anchoring and multilingual RLHF alignment, and discuss their implications for integrating LLMs safely into diplomatic and crisis-management settings.

Large language models are increasingly used to adapt math word problems for personalized learning at scale, but it remains an open question whether those adaptations are consistent across models, preserve cultural diversity at scale, and reveal which cultural entities models treat as most salient. We analyze how Claude Opus 4, GPT-4.1, and Gemini 2.5 Pro adapt 60 English math word problems into Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi (India), Urdu, Sindhi (Pakistan), Italian, and Sicilian (Italy), a language set spanning the full resource spectrum, from high-resource Italian and Hindi to under-studied Sindhi, Sicilian, and Punjabi. We annotate 6,489 entity transformations, coding whether models preserve, localize, generalize, omit, or change entities such as names, foods, and places. Models agree on transformation type in 62.5% of cases and on specific substitutions in only 33.5%, meaning model choice directly shapes which cultural world students encounter. All 21 language-model combinations show entropy collapse, with adaptation compressing rather than expanding cultural diversity. Models prioritize surface markers such as names, foods, and currencies while preserving deeper structural features such as grade-level systems that embed culturally specific assumptions. Despite prompts specifying target countries, models misattribute regional context by using Bangladeshi taka for Indian Bengali students and produce cross-cultural contamination, such as adapting egg hunts as Eid activities. Some failures are visible in individual translations. Others, including diversity collapse, systematic preference for surface markers, and consistent regional misattribution, emerge only through corpus-level analysis. The surface plausibility that makes adapted problems look correct is precisely what makes deeper failures easy to overlook.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in emotionally sensitive social conversations, where responses may shift from balanced support toward excessive validation or escalatory alignment. Existing sycophancy research primarily focuses on factual agreement and instruction-following settings, leaving culturally grounded conversational sycophancy underexplored. We introduce BenSyc, the first benchmark for studying conversational sycophancy in Bengali social contexts. Starting from 11,840 Reddit posts and 170k comments collected from communities across Bangladesh and West Bengal, we construct a human-validated benchmark with binary labels and a fine-grained five-level taxonomy spanning Invalidation, Neutral, Support, Validation, and Escalation. We evaluate more than 15 open and proprietary LLMs on conversational alignment classification and response generation tasks. Results show that distinguishing empathetic support from reinforcement-oriented validation remains challenging even for frontier instruction-tuned models: the best system achieves only 61.8 Macro-F1 on binary detection and 61.7 Macro-F1 on five-class classification. In generation settings, several models frequently produce strongly validating or escalatory responses in emotionally charged situations. Our findings highlight substantial variation across model families and conversational behaviors, underscoring the importance of culturally grounded multilingual benchmarks for evaluating socially aligned conversational AI systems.

Multilingual safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has predominantly relied on direct translation (DT) of English benchmarks into target languages - an approach that converts surface-level linguistic form while failing to reflect the cultural context embedded in threat scenarios, social norms, and legal frameworks. We construct paired DT and culturally-adapted (CA) datasets via 1:1 seed matching for four languages - Korean (KO), Japanese (JA), Thai (TH), and Khmer (KM) - and compare Attack Success Rate (ASR) and Cultural Realism scores across four open-source LLM. CA prompts yield Delta-ASR > 0 across all 16 language x model combinations (mean +9.3 pp), and DT-based evaluation underestimates risk in 44 of 48 category x language combinations. Language-level analysis reveals that the distribution of threat forms is heterogeneous across languages. Cultural Realism analysis further shows that DT Cultural Depth (C3) scores remain consistently below 1.0 out of 3.0 across all four languages (mean 0.17), whereas CA scores reach up to 2.51, indicating that direct translation produces inputs systematically divergent from those encountered in real-world multicultural settings. These findings demonstrate that adapting benchmarks to language-specific cultural contexts - rather than relying on linguistic translation alone - is necessary for valid multilingual LLM safety evaluation.

As Russia's war against Ukraine extends into generative AI, large language models (LLMs) adapted for local post-Soviet languages are deployed in contested information environments. Policy and industry discourse assumes that culturally aligned adaptation encodes the political orientation of the target community: a Ukrainian-oriented model will resist Russian narratives, a Russian-oriented one will reinforce them. Does it? This article systematically disconfirms that assumption. We run a controlled audit of four openly available LLMs sharing a common base model but fine-tuned for different linguistic communities, querying them in Ukrainian, Russian and English across ten contested wartime narratives: Crimea, "denazification", the "one people" thesis, and atrocity denial at Bucha and Mariupol. The result is a Fine-Tuning Paradox: the Ukrainian-oriented model shows the weakest resistance to Russian disinformation in Russian, while the Russian-oriented one exhibits the strongest rejection. Corpus composition, language coverage and prompt format prove more decisive than nominal cultural provenance. We situate these findings within debates on hybrid warfare, digital sovereignty and post-imperial information orders, arguing that the principal threat to regional information sovereignty is not adversarial fine-tuning but the untested assumption that cultural alignment guarantees resilience.

Safety-aligned large language models often exhibit sycophancy, which is the tendency to affirm users' opinions regardless of factual accuracy. Although well-studied in English, its manifestation in other languages remains largely unexamined, leaving billions of non-English speakers potentially vulnerable to model-validated misinformation. We present the first large-scale, multi-model evaluation of cross-lingual sycophancy, benchmarking \textbf{six instruction-tuned models} across \textbf{1.1 million instances} spanning \textbf{38 languages} and \textbf{33 topic categories}. We identify a consistent resource-tier effect: sycophancy rates spike sharply in low-resource and zero-shot language settings. Critically, this degradation is topic-agnostic, as models fail uniformly across both benign and safety-critical prompts, offering no additional protection where it is most needed. We further identify tokenizer fertility as a structural driver of this alignment collapse. Collectively, our results demonstrate that prevailing alignment methodologies generalize poorly beyond high-resource languages, underscoring the urgent need for equitable multilingual safety techniques.

Multilingual LLM-as-a-judge is widely used to evaluate model outputs across languages, but suffers from cross-lingual inconsistency (Fu and Liu, 2025). Existing methods typically treat this inconsistency as noise and mitigate it through voting or aggregation. In this work, we instead show that multilingual inconsistency can provide complementary evaluation signals. Our oracle analysis finds that sampling judgments across languages yields a higher performance upper bound than single-language judging, indicating that different languages potentially include complementary judgments. Motivated by this finding, we propose SEMJ, a self-evolving multilingual judge that leverages cross-lingual inconsistency for iterative refinement. SEMJ constructs multilingual variants of each input, collects independent judgments and rationales, and feeds inconsistent outputs back for self-reflection and re-evaluation. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that SEMJ consistently outperforms voting and reflection baselines in both accuracy and cross-lingual consistency. Further analysis shows that inconsistency triggers useful re-evaluation, which improves judgment quality.

Symbolic benchmarks have emerged as a key approach to assess model robustness under minor modifications to STEM-related questions. However, existing symbolic benchmarks mostly remain limited to mathematical reasoning, lack visual grounding, and are predominantly in English. In this work, we introduce Sci-Rho (Science Rhobustness), a dynamic benchmark for visually-grounded STEM problems spanning five subjects and seven languages, comprising 4,242 problem templates (606 per language) crafted by domain experts, including Olympiad medalists. Each template is implemented as executable Python code that generates diverse but equivalent problem instances by varying numerical values, visual patterns, geometric shapes, color schemes, and function types, resulting in 42,420 instances in total, each paired with reasoning steps and ground-truth solutions. We evaluated 17 state-of-the-art VLMs and discovered a noticeable gap between worst-case accuracy (defined as the proportion of problem templates that a model answers correctly across every generated variation) and average accuracy. We also discovered that smaller models show noticeable performance degradation across languages, whereas proprietary and larger models remain robust. Step-level evaluation reflects this same trend, revealing a significant gap between average F1 and worst-case F1 scores. Finally, our inspection of attention heads of a VLM reveals substantial cross-lingual variation in the relative attention allocated to image tokens compared to text tokens. Our work highlights the importance of evaluation beyond static benchmarks as a metric to measure the quality of VLMs.

Large Language Models are transforming the support for clinical decision and their application in real scenarios. Yet, most benchmarks are conducted in English, and cross-lingual evaluation is needed to tackle the language gaps in global access. We introduce ClinicalBr, the first bilingual benchmark for clinical decision built from real Brazilian case reports. The corpus contains 2,892 cases drawn from 28 SciELO medical journals, spanning 18 specialties, and is structured as parallel Portuguese-English pairs. Each case supports four evaluation tasks: diagnosis retrieval, differential diagnosis, exam recommendation, and treatment planning. We evaluate four models: MedGemma-27B, Sabiá-4, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini, across both languages. The central finding is that the Portuguese-English performance gap is task-dependent, not general. In diagnosis retrieval, English yields a consistent advantage across all models, with +7.5-12.1 accuracy points. This advantage disappears in differential diagnosis, exam recommendation, and treatment planning, where confidence intervals cross zero for most models and Portuguese completeness scores are marginally higher. Brazilian-endemic conditions proved easier than the full corpus, not harder, indicating that tropical presentations are adequately represented in current pre-training. Exam recommendation was the hardest task across all models and both languages, with F1 scores below 0.10, well below the differential diagnosis ceiling of 0.20-0.27.

Large language models are increasingly used to answer culturally grounded questions across languages, yet it remains unclear whether local cultural knowledge is better accessed through English or the local language. Existing evaluations face two key limitations: many rely on parallel template-based questions that may not reflect how cultural knowledge naturally appears, and raw accuracy conflates general language proficiency with language-conditioned knowledge access. We address these issues with a controlled framework built on real-world cultural questions collected from regional benchmarks and local sources. By crossing question type (culture-agnostic vs. culture-specific) with query language (English vs. local language), and estimating ability with a shared 1PL item response theory model, we separate proficiency from localized knowledge access. Across 13 locales and roughly 80 models, we find a consistent English advantage on culture-agnostic questions, indicating stronger English proficiency. However, after accounting for this proficiency gap, local languages show a positive knowledge-access advantage in nearly all locale-model settings. This advantage is often masked in raw accuracy but becomes more visible for frontier, regionally aligned, or language-adapted models. Our results suggest that weaker local-language performance does not necessarily imply weaker cultural knowledge; rather, local cultural knowledge may be more accessible through the local language but hidden by limited language proficiency.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across multimodal tasks, yet their safety robustness remains an open challenge. While prior work has shown that structured visual prompts such as flowcharts can effectively jailbreak VLMs, existing studies are largely limited to English-centric settings. In this paper, we introduce MLingualFC, a multilingual multimodal benchmark designed to evaluate jailbreak vulnerabilities of VLMs across diverse languages using structured flowchart representations. MLingualFC encodes harmful instructions into flowchart images across five languages (Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Romanian, and German). We evaluate state-of-the-art multilingual VLMs, including Qwen2.5-VL, Gemma-4, and Pangea, under a black-box threat model. Our results reveal significant multilingual safety gaps. Flowchart-based attacks achieve high attack success rates (ASR) in case of Latin script languages, demonstrating that visual encoding of harmful content effectively bypasses safety alignment across languages. In contrast, non-Latin script languages such as Punjabi exhibit substantially lower ASR, suggesting potential limitations in visual text recognition rather than stronger safety alignment. These findings highlight that current VLM safety mechanisms fail to generalize across languages and modalities. Resources are available at https://github.com/Rishabhpm23/MLingualFC

We introduce mmPISA-bench, a compact high-quality multilingual reasoning benchmark derived from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The benchmark consists of 25 multiple-choice questions that require reasoning in order to be answered correctly. Each question is provided in official human translations to 43 languages and complemented with machine-translated counterparts (i.e., 2,150 data points in total). We evaluate two mainstream proprietary LLMs across languages, reasoning effort levels, and translation types in terms of their ability to answer the questions correctly. Our results show that modern LLMs can reason effectively across all evaluated languages, achieve accuracy comparable to human test-takers, with some performance variations across covered languages. We further find that machine-translated questions do not degrade accuracy relative to official human translations which suggests that high-quality machine translation (synthetic data) might often be adequate for large-scale multilingual reasoning evaluations where official translations are not available. Finally, we analyze token usage and related inference cost and find that LLMs usage in some languages is simultaneously more expensive and less accurate.