arXiv subjects

Chalamalasetti Kranti

Publications and source records attributed to Chalamalasetti Kranti.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Last Translation Benchmark

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, vulnerable to reward-hacking, and provide unactionable assessments. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking objective progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Translating Classical Poetry into Modern Prose

We built a dataset for the task of poem-to-prose translation from 13th-17th Century Telugu classical poetry to contemporary Telugu and English prose, which we call Padyam2Gadyam. The dataset consists of 600 poems and their human-verified Telugu and English prose translations. We evaluated 2 machine translation systems and 5 contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to do zero-shot poem-to-prose translation into Telugu and English using this dataset. Our results indicate that while the general purpose LLMs are better than the machine translation systems, there are systematic issues with the generation and evaluation of prose translation in both languages across systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

MATA: Mindful Assessment of the Telugu Abilities of Large Language Models

In this paper, we introduce MATA, a novel evaluation dataset to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Telugu language, comprising 729 carefully curated multiple-choice and open-ended questions that span diverse linguistic dimensions. We evaluate 11 open-weight and closed-source LLMs on our dataset and present a fine-grained analysis of their performance. Further, we empirically show how LLMs rely on superficial heuristics such as answer position and distractor patterns for multiple-choice questions. Finally, we also compare LLM-as-a-judge evaluation with human evaluation for open-ended questions assess its reliability in a low-resource language. We argue that such fine-grained evaluation is essential for understanding model limitations and can inform the development of more linguistically capable LLMs, while also serving as a foundation for future research in Telugu NLP. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/TeluguLLMResearch/MATA

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Test Set Quality in Multilingual LLM Evaluation

Several multilingual benchmark datasets have been developed in a semi-automatic manner in the recent past to measure progress and understand the state-of-the-art in the multilingual capabilities of Large Language Models. However, there is not a lot of attention paid to the quality of the datasets themselves, despite the existence of previous work in identifying errors in even fully human-annotated test sets. In this paper, we manually analyze recent multilingual evaluation sets in two languages - French and Telugu, identifying several errors in the process. We compare the performance difference across several LLMs with the original and revised versions of the datasets and identify large differences (almost 10% in some cases) in both languages). Based on these results, we argue that test sets should not be considered immutable and should be revisited, checked for correctness, and potentially versioned. We end with some recommendations for both the dataset creators as well as consumers on addressing the dataset quality issues.

cs.CL↗