Abstract
Multilingual evaluation benchmarks are the primary instrument for assessing whether large language models generalize beyond English, yet the adequacy of these benchmarks has received little systematic scrutiny. We present a data-driven audit of 51 recent multilingual benchmarks spanning 242 datasets and 219 languages, organized around three pillars: coverage, representativeness, and rigor. Our analysis reveals that coverage is wide but thin with 36% of evaluated languages appearing in only a single benchmark, entire regions (Oceania, the Americas, Central Asia) are near-zero, and a stark task equity gap leaves low-resource languages evaluated on only 1-3 task categories versus 14 for high-resource languages. Representativeness is structurally compromised: translation from English remains the dominant construction strategy where 56% of all dataset-language instances are translated introducing artifacts and English-centric framing, while culturally grounded content is concentrated in a handful of community-driven benchmarks with narrow language scope. The ecosystem thus forces a trade-off between breadth and validity. Rigor is undermined by benchmark contamination, including translated benchmark leakage and parallel corpus overlap that evade surface-form detection. We synthesize these findings into concrete recommendations for building evaluation frameworks that are natively constructed, culturally grounded, contamination-aware, and designed to serve the communities whose languages they claim to evaluate. The dashboard with all the metadata collected can be found at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36990
