# Evaluation of large language models using an Indian language LGBTI+ lexicon

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17787 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17787/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [GPT-NeoX-20B: An Open-Source Autoregressive Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.06745/) (2022)
- [Analysing Lexical Semantic Change with Contextualised Word Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14118/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- ['Since Lawyers are Males..': Examining Implicit Gender Bias in Hindi Language Generation by LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13484/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on the basis of task-based benchmarks such as MMLU. Such benchmarks do not examine responsible behaviour of LLMs in specific contexts. This is particularly true in the LGBTI+ context where social stereotypes may result in variation in LGBTI+ terminology. Therefore, domain-specific lexicons or dictionaries may be useful as a representative list of words against which the LLM's behaviour needs to be evaluated. This paper presents a methodology for evaluation of LLMs using an LGBTI+ lexicon in Indian languages. The methodology consists of four steps: formulating NLP tasks relevant to the expected behaviour, creating prompts that test LLMs, using the LLMs to obtain the output and, finally, manually evaluating the results. Our qualitative analysis shows that the three LLMs we experiment on are unable to detect underlying hateful content. Similarly, we observe limitations in using machine translation as means to evaluate natural language understanding in languages other than English. The methodology presented in this paper can be useful for LGBTI+ lexicons in other languages as well as other domain-specific lexicons. The work done in this paper opens avenues for responsible behaviour of LLMs, as demonstrated in the context of prevalent social perception of the LGBTI+ community.