Klaudia-Doris Thellmann, Bernhard Stadler, Dan Saattrup Nielsen, Michael Färber, Jens Lehmann
Translated versions of English-origin benchmarks such as MMLU are widely used to evaluate large language models in non-English languages, yet it remains unclear whether they measure the same constructs as natively created benchmarks. We frame this as a proxy validity question and compare DeepL-translated MMLU proxies against six native benchmarks in seven pairings across five Nordic and Baltic languages, evaluating 29 models on each pairing. Beyond ranking agreement, we test incremental proxy validity: does the translated score add predictive value for native performance after controlling for model size and language proficiency? Proxy validity varies substantially across benchmark pairings. Applying the same robustness criteria to all seven pairings, we find four robust effects, two marginal effects, and one null result. The strongest evidence occurs for curriculum-overlap benchmarks such as Skolprov ($ΔR^2$=.128, 95% CI [.038,.253]), whereas translated MMLU provides no significant incremental value for Sweden-specific factual knowledge in SwedishFacts (p=.242). Because SwedishFacts is also the only open-ended benchmark, we cannot fully separate the effects of local content and response format. Overall, the results indicate a clear pattern: translated benchmarks provide a better proxy when their source content overlaps with the native evaluation target, while locally anchored knowledge is less reliably captured.
Tobias Schreieder, Tim Schopf, Michael Färber Technische Universität Dresden
The increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs) has raised serious concerns about their reliability and trustworthiness. As a result, a growing body of research focuses on evidence-based text generation with LLMs, aiming to link model outputs to supporting evidence to ensure traceability and verifiability. However, the field is fragmented due to inconsistent terminology, isolated evaluation practices, and a lack of unified benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we systematically analyze 134 papers, introduce a unified taxonomy of evidence-based text generation with LLMs, and investigate 300 evaluation metrics across seven key dimensions. Thereby, we focus on approaches that use citations, attribution, or quotations for evidence-based text generation. Building on this, we examine the distinctive characteristics and representative methods in the field. Finally, we highlight open challenges and outline promising directions for future work.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Klaudia Thellmann TU Dresden, Bernhard Stadler InfAI and TU Dresden, Michael Färber Technische Universität Dresden, Jens Lehmann Amazon, Technische Universität Dresden, University of Bonn and Fraunhofer IAIS
Machine-translated benchmarks are widely used to assess the multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet translation errors in these benchmarks remain underexplored, raising concerns about the reliability and comparability of multilingual evaluation. We address two practical gaps: (i) how well automatic MQM-style error spans from LLM judges and a span-aware QE baseline (xCOMET-XXL) match expert human span annotations on benchmark translations, and (ii) how strongly translation errors (as opposed to source-side issues in the English original) explain accuracy drops on translated benchmarks. We find that span agreement is non-trivial on naturally occurring benchmark translations, and that target-side translation errors are consistently associated with measurable, percentage-point drops in translated accuracy even after controlling for English correctness and source-side anomalies.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Zhan Qu Technische Universität Dresden; ScaDS.AI, Michael Färber Technische Universität Dresden
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to medicine, yet their adoption is limited by concerns over reliability and safety. Existing evaluations either test factual medical knowledge in isolation or assess patient-level reasoning without verifying correctness, leaving a critical gap. We introduce MediEval, a benchmark that links MIMIC-IV electronic health records (EHRs) to a unified knowledge base built from UMLS and other biomedical vocabularies. MediEval generates diverse factual and counterfactual medical statements within real patient contexts, enabling systematic evaluation across a 4-quadrant framework that jointly considers knowledge grounding and contextual consistency. Using this framework, we identify critical failure modes, including hallucinated support and truth inversion, that current proprietary, open-source, and domain-specific LLMs frequently exhibit. To address these risks, we propose Counterfactual Risk-Aware Fine-tuning (CoRFu), a DPO-based method with an asymmetric penalty targeting unsafe confusions. CoRFu improves by +16.4 macro-F1 points over the base model and eliminates truth inversion errors, demonstrating both higher accuracy and substantially greater safety.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表