Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies script fragmentation and evaluation format artifacts as key drivers behind the performance gap between English and Bengali in open-source LLMs. By demonstrating that tokenization costs and exact-match scoring distort cross-lingual benchmarks, the study highlights how tokenizer design choices disproportionately impact low-resource languages like Bengali. The findings underscore the need for standardized, language-aware evaluation pipelines to accurately assess model capabilities across diverse scripts.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Script Fragmentation and Format: What Drives the English-Bengali Performance Gap in Open LLMs?

arXiv4 min read

arXiv:2507.23248v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Bengali is spoken by more than 230 million people, yet no standardized instrument evaluates large language models (LLMs) on Bengali across the task categories used to benchmark frontier models. We release 8 English benchmarks translated into Bengali with a single consistent pipeline and use them to evaluate 10 open LLMs from 4 families on paired English and Bengali inputs. Script fragmentation is what subword tokenizers do to Bengali's alphasyllabary, whose written units are grapheme clusters spanning several Unicode code points: they cut the script into pieces smaller than a character, at a cost set by the vocabulary rather than the script itself. Format belongs to the evaluation, the answer shape that exact-match scoring demands regardless of whether the model knew the answer. Beyond confirming a substantial gap (macro LLM-judge score 0.79 in English versus 0.63 in Bengali), we show that part of it is a measurement artifact: exact-match accuracy conflates correctness with format adherence and because format failure is asymmetric across languages it distorts the apparent gap for some models three to five fold and even reverses its sign for one reasoning-tuned model. On the fragmentation side, Bengali costs roughly five times more tokens per word than English, the 10 models share only 4 vocabularies and that cost varies twofold across them (7.9 tokens per word under Llama~3, 4.0 under Tekken), and under three of the four the average Bengali token spans fewer bytes than a single code point. Bengali is the constant here and the vocabularies are not, so what Bengali text costs is set by tokenizer design rather than by the script. Fertility and sequence length correlate only weakly with scores (r = -0.23), so we present this as a cost and segmentation concern rather than a driver of the gap. The datasets, pipeline and evaluation code are released.

Title:Script Fragmentation and Format: What Drives the English-Bengali Performance Gap in Open LLMs?

Abstract:Bengali is spoken by more than 230 million people, yet no standardized instrument evaluates large language models (LLMs) on Bengali across the task categories used to benchmark frontier models. We release 8 English benchmarks translated into Bengali with a single consistent pipeline and use them to evaluate 10 open LLMs from 4 families on paired English and Bengali inputs. Script fragmentation is what subword tokenizers do to Bengali's alphasyllabary, whose written units are grapheme clusters spanning several Unicode code points: they cut the script into pieces smaller than a character, at a cost set by the vocabulary rather than the script itself. Format belongs to the evaluation, the answer shape that exact-match scoring demands regardless of whether the model knew the answer. Beyond confirming a substantial gap (macro LLM-judge score 0.79 in English versus 0.63 in Bengali), we show that part of it is a measurement artifact: exact-match accuracy conflates correctness with format adherence and because format failure is asymmetric across languages it distorts the apparent gap for some models three to five fold and even reverses its sign for one reasoning-tuned model. On the fragmentation side, Bengali costs roughly five times more tokens per word than English, the 10 models share only 4 vocabularies and that cost varies twofold across them (7.9 tokens per word under Llama~3, 4.0 under Tekken), and under three of the four the average Bengali token spans fewer bytes than a single code point. Bengali is the constant here and the vocabularies are not, so what Bengali text costs is set by tokenizer design rather than by the script. Fertility and sequence length correlate only weakly with scores (r = -0.23), so we present this as a cost and segmentation concern rather than a driver of the gap. The datasets, pipeline and evaluation code are released.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2507.23248 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2507.23248v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.23248 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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 · 410 words

Related coverage