Whose Facts Count? A Culturally Responsive Audit of LLM Evaluation Benchmarks

📅 2026-09-21
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
本文使用文化响应性评估框架审计了LLM评价基准,揭示了其在语言和文化代表性上的不足,并提出了一种新的评估框架。
📝 Abstract
LLM benchmarks function as evaluation instruments, informing decisions that affect education, labor, and public services worldwide. Drawing on Hood, Kirkhart, and Hopson's culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) frameworks, this paper applies a six-dimension CR rubric to audit OpenAI's SimpleQA (N = 4,326 items) and the LMSYS Chatbot Arena (N = 600 conversations). Every SimpleQA question requires English-language archival verification as its evidentiary basis. A single rater's preoccupation with Colombian founding dates accounts for 2.70% of items, inflating the appearance of Global South coverage. English-language prompts constitute 76.3% of Arena conversations, against an International Telecommunication Union (ITU)-estimated 25.9% share of global internet users. A 50-item counter-benchmark scored a mean CR deficit nearly three times lower than SimpleQA (Cohen's d = 1.01). The paper proposes a practical CR evaluation framework. These are structural validity failures, not incidental measurement problems, with direct consequences for communities whose knowledge traditions these instruments were not built to see.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Culturally Responsive Evaluation
LLM Benchmarks
Global South
Structural Validity
Knowledge Traditions
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

Culturally Responsive Evaluation
LLM Benchmarks
Global South
Structural Validity
Inclusive Framework
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
💼 Related Jobs
No related jobs found.
F
Fatima Tuz Zahra
AIRELab, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
M
Md. Sajeebul Islam Sk.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BRAC University
R
Rachel Chung
Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University