The rapid advancements of Large Language models (LLMs) necessitate robust benchmarks. In this paper, we present AraEval, a pioneering and comprehensive evaluation suite specifically developed to assess the advanced knowledge, reasoning, truthfulness, and instruction- following capabilities of foundation models in the Arabic context. AraEval includes a diverse set of evaluation tasks that test various dimensions of knowledge and reasoning, with a total of 24,378 samples. These tasks cover areas such as linguistic understanding, factual recall, logical inference, commonsense reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, and domain-specific expertise, ensuring that the evaluation goes beyond basic language comprehension. It covers multiple domains of knowledge, such as science, history, religion, and literature, ensuring that the LLMs are tested on a broad spectrum of topics relevant to Arabic-speaking contexts. AraEval is designed to facilitate comparisons across different foundation models, enabling LLM developers and users to benchmark perfor- mance effectively. In addition, it provides diagnostic insights to identify specific areas where models excel or struggle, guiding further development. AraEval datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/humain-ai/araeval-datasets-687760e04b12a7afb429a4a0.

The impressive advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in English has not been matched across all languages. In particular, LLM performance in Arabic lags behind, due to data scarcity, linguistic diversity of Arabic and its dialects, morphological complexity, etc. Progress is further hindered by the quality of Arabic benchmarks, which typically rely on static, publicly available data, lack comprehensive task coverage, or do not provide dedicated platforms with blind test sets. This makes it challenging to measure actual progress and to mitigate data contamination. Here, we aim to bridge these gaps. In particular, we introduce BALSAM, a comprehensive, community-driven benchmark aimed at advancing Arabic LLM development and evaluation. It includes 78 NLP tasks from 14 broad categories, with 52K examples divided into 37K test and 15K development, and a centralized, transparent platform for blind evaluation. We envision BALSAM as a unifying platform that sets standards and promotes collaborative research to advance Arabic LLM capabilities.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated sophisticated capabilities, including the ability to process and comprehend extended contexts. These emergent capabilities necessitate rigorous evaluation methods to effectively assess their performance in long-context understanding. In this paper, we present LC-Eval, a bilingual, multi-task evaluation benchmark designed to evaluate long-context understanding in English and Arabic, targeting context lengths ranging from 4k to over 128k tokens. LC-Eval introduces four novel and challenging tasks: multi-document question answering, bilingual question answering, claim verification within a paragraph, and multiple-choice questions based on long contexts. These tasks are designed to assess LLMs’ abilities in deep reasoning, document comprehension, information tracing, and bilingual information extraction and understanding. The benchmark includes datasets in both Arabic and English for each task, allowing for a comparative analysis of their performance across different text genres. Evaluations were conducted on both open-weight and closed LLMs, with results indicating that LC-Eval presents significant challenges. Even high-performing models, such as GPT-4o, struggled with certain tasks, highlighting the complexity and rigor of the benchmark.

Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value — we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple-choice question benchmarks (e.g., MMLU), minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a *hybrid* scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks. The code for this paper is available at [https://github.com/National-Center-for-AI-Saudi-Arabia/lm-evaluation-harness](https://github.com/National-Center-for-AI-Saudi-Arabia/lm-evaluation-harness).