Large language models have made tremendous progress in recent years, but low-resource languages, like Tibetan, remain significantly underrepresented in their evaluation. Despite Tibetan being spoken by over seven million people, it has largely been neglected in the development and assessment of LLMs. To address this gap, we present a Tibetan Language Understanding Evaluation Benchmark, TLUE, which is also the first large-scale benchmark for measuring the proficiency of large language models in the Tibetan language. TLUE comprises two major components: a comprehensive multi-task understanding benchmark spanning 5 domains and 67 subdomains, and a safety benchmark encompassing 7 subdomains. Finally, we evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that most large language models perform below the random baseline, especially highlighting the considerable challenges they face in Tibetan language processing. TLUE provides a crucial foundation for advancing future research in Tibetan language understanding and highlights the importance of promoting greater inclusivity in the development of large language models.

Educational materials such as survey articles in specialized fields like computer science traditionally require tremendous expert inputs and are therefore expensive to create and update. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant success across various general tasks. However, their effectiveness and limitations in the education domain are yet to be fully explored. In this work, we examine the proficiency of LLMs in generating succinct survey articles specific to the niche field of NLP in computer science, focusing on a curated list of 99 topics. Automated benchmarks reveal that GPT-4 surpasses its predecessors, inluding GPT-3.5, PaLM2, and LLaMa2 by margins ranging from 2% to 20% in comparison to the established ground truth. We compare both human and GPT-based evaluation scores and provide in-depth analysis. While our findings suggest that GPT-created surveys are more contemporary and accessible than human-authored ones, certain limitations were observed. Notably, GPT-4, despite often delivering outstanding content, occasionally exhibited lapses like missing details or factual errors. At last, we compared the rating behavior between humans and GPT-4 and found systematic bias in using GPT evaluation.