Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses a critical gap in multilingual AI by exposing how standard evaluation metrics introduce biases due to tokenization and orthographic differences across languages. The study demonstrates that sentence-level negative log-likelihood offers a more consistent framework for fair cross-lingual comparisons, which is essential for developing robust global language models.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.25089v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Crosslingual evaluation of language models that enables fair comparisons remains a fundamental challenge in multilingual NLP. Existing studies adopt a variety of downstream tasks and intrinsic metrics with different theoretical justifications, yet there has been little empirical investigation into whether these approaches yield meaningful crosslingual conclusions. We systematically examine crosslingual evaluation approaches using controlled monolingual language models trained on parallel data with varying tokenizer vocabulary sizes and model sizes, and further validate our findings on multilingual LLMs. We further discuss challenges in achieving comparable downstream evaluation across languages. Our results show that several widely used normalized metrics introduce crosslinguistic biases rooted in tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. In contrast, sentence-level negative log-likelihood computed over semantically equivalent sequences provides more meaningful and consistent crosslingual comparisons.

Title:Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

Abstract:Crosslingual evaluation of language models that enables fair comparisons remains a fundamental challenge in multilingual NLP. Existing studies adopt a variety of downstream tasks and intrinsic metrics with different theoretical justifications, yet there has been little empirical investigation into whether these approaches yield meaningful crosslingual conclusions. We systematically examine crosslingual evaluation approaches using controlled monolingual language models trained on parallel data with varying tokenizer vocabulary sizes and model sizes, and further validate our findings on multilingual LLMs. We further discuss challenges in achieving comparable downstream evaluation across languages. Our results show that several widely used normalized metrics introduce crosslinguistic biases rooted in tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. In contrast, sentence-level negative log-likelihood computed over semantically equivalent sequences provides more meaningful and consistent crosslingual comparisons.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2608.25089 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2608.25089v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25089 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 228 words

Related coverage