AI Navigate

Who Benchmarks the Benchmarks? A Case Study of LLM Evaluation in Icelandic

arXiv cs.CL / 3/18/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper evaluates LLM benchmarking for Icelandic and advocates improved evaluation methods for low- and medium-resource languages.
  • It finds that benchmarks using synthetic or machine-translated data that are unverified often contain severely flawed test examples, skewing results.
  • The authors warn that without verification, translation quality constraints make such benchmarks unreliable in low-resource settings.
  • Quantitative error analysis reveals clear discrepancies between benchmarks based on human-authored or human-translated data versus synthetic/MT benchmarks.
  • The study calls for changes in benchmarking practice to ensure validity and fairness in evaluating Icelandic LLMs and similar languages.

Abstract

This paper evaluates current Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarking for Icelandic, identifies problems, and calls for improved evaluation methods in low/medium-resource languages in particular. We show that benchmarks that include synthetic or machine-translated data that have not been verified in any way, commonly contain severely flawed test examples that are likely to skew the results and undermine the tests' validity. We warn against the use of such methods without verification in low/medium-resource settings as the translation quality can, at best, only be as good as MT quality for a given language at any given time. Indeed, the results of our quantitative error analysis on existing benchmarks for Icelandic show clear differences between human-authored/-translated benchmarks vs. synthetic or machine-translated benchmarks.