LLM evaluators (trained reward models and prompted LLM-as-a-Judge) are routinely validated via pairwise accuracy. In a multilingual setting, this operates under the premise that high pairwise accuracy implies reliable, language-neutral scoring. We show that this assumption does not hold. We conduct experiments with semantically identical instruction-response pairs across 23 languages, and find that multilingual evaluators assign significantly different scores to different evaluation languages. The bias is statistically significant and consistent across eight open-weight evaluators of different architectures and training paradigms, persists in frontier judges, and is strongly correlated with language resource level: lower-resource languages are scored more generously. Meanwhile, these biases are invisible to pairwise accuracy: evaluators achieve above 90% pairwise accuracy, yet have up to 43% difference in acceptance rate across languages under a global decision threshold, meaning, for instance, that harmful content in lower-resource languages is more likely to pass safety filters. Per-language thresholds would require language identification, which can be defeated by code-switched prompts. We then investigate why lower-resource languages receive higher rather than lower scores, and we find that model uncertainty is linked with the effect: models tend to give higher scores when less confident, both under negative log-likelihood and under token-free uncertainty measures; however, language identity remains a significant predictor after controlling for uncertainty, and the bias cannot be explained away by content difficulty alone, but is a structural, language-level misalignment.
It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces M-GATE (Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency), a benchmark of linguistic proficiency spanning 30 typologically diverse languages from high- to low-resource, and evaluates over 50 models in more than 80 configurations.
Tomáš Burkert, Angelika Peljak-Łapińska, David Zelený· 0 citations
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.
Large language models access knowledge inconsistently across languages, but to what extent do they differ in their skill sets when interacting with different languages? This work quantifies cross-lingual skill inconsistency orthogonally from knowledge and general benchmark performance. We do this via multilingual self-play: two instances of the same model compete in a text-based game, each interacting through a different language interface. Since the model, opponent, rules, state space, and available actions remain fixed, this setting isolates the effect of language on the model's realized behavior. We build a multilingual extension to TextArena and evaluate three open-weight models across eight languages and six games covering spatial reasoning, imperfect information, resource allocation, and repeated interaction. We find that the same model can exhibit markedly different playing strength across languages, with systematic variation in win--loss margins, invalid actions, and strategic tendencies. Detailed analyses reveal language-specific failures in spatial reasoning, card-conditioned decisions, and optimal move selection. In some settings, changing only the intermediate reasoning language recovers much of the lost performance, suggesting that language can affect different stages of the decision process. These results show that skill discrepancies are a measurable major roadblock in the development of truly multilingual models. Better understanding these discrepancies can help us design models that perform more equitably across languages.
Bobby Cheng, Adam Gaber, Zhengzhe Liu et al.· 0 citations