M-GATE: Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency Benchmark for Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency. We introduce M-GATE (Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency), a benchmark of linguistic proficiency spanning 30 typologically diverse languages from high- to low-resource. M-GATE comprises three tasks: grammatical error detection on linguist-crafted, adversarially selected sentences that turn on hard, language-specific phenomena; round-trip translation of shared English sources across 29 target languages, scored by a three-provider LLM judge panel validated against professional annotators; and a supplementary tokenizer-efficiency measure. We evaluate over 50 models in more than 80 configurations. Fluency and proficiency come apart sharply: models that translate competently sit near chance on the adversarial grammar items, the best reaching a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of only 0.36, and their errors lean systematically toward under-flagging, accepting ungrammatical text rather than raising false alarms. Translation quality closely tracks a language's share of pretraining data (r = 0.86 against log Common Crawl share), producing a steep low-resource penalty that is nonetheless narrowing with successive model releases. Enabling reasoning reliably improves translation, while its effect on error detection is smaller and for some models negative, so the best configuration is task-dependent. To resist contamination, test items are kept private behind a continuously updated public leaderboard, with illustrative examples released (https://m-gate.ai).
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.
Builds on
32 of 51 references.
References · 32
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 958
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 798
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 671
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
20 more
- 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
- 2023The Belebele Benchmark: a Parallel Reading Comprehension Dataset in 122 Language Variantscited by 311
- 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
- 2023Language Model Tokenizers Introduce Unfairness Between Languagescited by 214
- 2023Do All Languages Cost the Same? Tokenization in the Era of Commercial Language Modelscited by 192
- 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
- 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 142
- 2021Systematic Inequalities in Language Technology Performance across the World's Languagescited by 120
- 2024The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinismcited by 116
- 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 110
- 2024Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settingscited by 92
- 2025Understanding and Mitigating Numerical Sources of Nondeterminism in LLM Inferencecited by 53
- 2021CLiMP: A Benchmark for Chinese Language Model Evaluationcited by 46
- 2023Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language modelscited by 44
- 2025How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge?cited by 30
- 2025MultiLoKo: a multilingual local knowledge benchmark for LLMs spanning 31 languagescited by 26
- 2023MELA: Multilingual Evaluation of Linguistic Acceptabilitycited by 14
- 2022Assessing Digital Language Support on a Global Scalecited by 6
- 2021On Length Divergence Bias in Textual Matching Modelscited by 4
- 2026Round-Trip Translation Reveals What Frontier Multilingual Benchmarks Misscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.