mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Script Fragmentation and Format: What Drives the English-Bengali Performance Gap in Open LLMs?

arXiv 2507.23248 ↗First posted 31 Jul 2025cs.CL cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Bengali is spoken by more than 230 million people, yet no standardized instrument evaluates large language models (LLMs) on Bengali across the task categories used to benchmark frontier models. We release 8 English benchmarks translated into Bengali with a single consistent pipeline and use them to evaluate 10 open LLMs from 4 families on paired English and Bengali inputs. Script fragmentation is what subword tokenizers do to Bengali's alphasyllabary, whose written units are grapheme clusters spanning several Unicode code points: they cut the script into pieces smaller than a character, at a cost set by the vocabulary rather than the script itself. Format belongs to the evaluation, the answer shape that exact-match scoring demands regardless of whether the model knew the answer. Beyond confirming a substantial gap (macro LLM-judge score 0.79 in English versus 0.63 in Bengali), we show that part of it is a measurement artifact: exact-match accuracy conflates correctness with format adherence and because format failure is asymmetric across languages it distorts the apparent gap for some models three to five fold and even reverses its sign for one reasoning-tuned model. On the fragmentation side, Bengali costs roughly five times more tokens per word than English, the 10 models share only 4 vocabularies and that cost varies twofold across them (7.9 tokens per word under Llama~3, 4.0 under Tekken), and under three of the four the average Bengali token spans fewer bytes than a single code point. Bengali is the constant here and the vocabularies are not, so what Bengali text costs is set by tokenizer design rather than by the script. Fertility and sequence length correlate only weakly with scores (r = -0.23), so we present this as a cost and segmentation concern rather than a driver of the gap. The datasets, pipeline and evaluation code are released.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2025.

Builds on

15 of 30 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
  3. 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
  4. 2020How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 318
  5. 2023Language Model Tokenizers Introduce Unfairness Between Languagescited by 214
  6. 2023Do All Languages Cost the Same? Tokenization in the Era of Commercial Language Modelscited by 192
  7. 2021BanglaBERT: Language Model Pretraining and Benchmarks for Low-Resource Language Understanding Evaluation in Banglacited by 125
  8. 2024IndicLLMSuite: A Blueprint for Creating Pre-training and Fine-Tuning Datasets for Indian Languagescited by 52
  9. 2023BenLLMEval: A Comprehensive Evaluation into the Potentials and Pitfalls of Large Language Models on Bengali NLPcited by 23
  10. 2024Khayyam Challenge (PersianMMLU): Is Your LLM Truly Wise to The Persian Language?cited by 22
  11. 2024xFinder: Large Language Models as Automated Evaluators for Reliable Evaluationcited by 19
  12. 2024Lexically Grounded Subword Segmentationcited by 13
3 more
  1. 2020A Large Multi-Target Dataset of Common Bengali Handwritten Graphemescited by 12
  2. 2024Bridging the Bosphorus: Advancing Turkish Large Language Models through Strategies for Low-Resource Language Adaptation and Benchmarkingcited by 10
  3. 2025BanglaByT5: Byte-Level Modelling for Banglacited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.