arXiv subjects

Verena Blaschke

Publications and source records attributed to Verena Blaschke.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Challenges and Recommendations for LLM-as-a-Judge in Multilingual Settings and for Low-Resource Languages

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for many natural language generation tasks (albeit mostly in English) due to shortcomings of conventional metrics and high correlations with human judgment. There are now attempts to extend LLM-as-a-Judge to multilingual settings including low-resource languages. However, LLMs have limited proficiency in low-resource languages, and there is often no adequate human validation in these settings. To highlight the scope of the problem and current practices, we explore the use of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators in ACL Anthology papers focusing on multilingual settings and low-resource languages across a diverse set of tasks. Out of 650 papers mentioning LLM-as-a-judge, only 33 of them focus on low-resource or multilingual settings. Our in-depth analysis of these papers indicates inconsistent evaluation outcomes, a tendency to overtrust LLM judgments in multilingual settings, and the widespread reliance on a single judge model per study. To help the NLP community further, we conclude with a checklist of recommendations about how to use LLM-as-a-Judge in multilingual and low-resource settings

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Are Non-English Papers Reviewed Fairly? Language-of-Study Bias in NLP Peer Reviews

Peer review plays a central role in the NLP publication process, but is susceptible to various biases. Here, we study language-of-study (LoS) bias: the tendency for reviewers to evaluate a paper differently based on the language(s) it studies, rather than its scientific merit. Despite being explicitly flagged in reviewing guidelines, such biases are poorly understood. Prior work treats such comments as part of broader categories of weak or unconstructive reviews without defining them as a distinct form of bias. We present the first systematic characterization of LoS bias, distinguishing negative and positive forms, and introduce the human-annotated dataset LOBSTER (Language-Of-study Bias in ScienTific pEer Review) and an LLM-based detection pipeline achieving 87.37 macro F1. We analyze 15,645 reviews to estimate how negative and positive biases differ with respect to the LoS, and find that non-English papers face substantially higher bias rates than English-only ones, with negative bias consistently outweighing positive bias. Finally, we identify four subcategories of negative bias, and find that demanding unjustified cross-lingual generalization is the most dominant form. We publicly release all resources to support work on fairer reviewing practices in NLP and beyond.

cs.CL↗