TurkBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Turkish Large Language Models

With the recent surge in the development of large language models, the need for comprehensive and language-specific evaluation benchmarks has become critical. While significant progress has been made in evaluating English language models, benchmarks for other languages, particularly those with unique linguistic characteristics such as Turkish, remain less developed. Our study introduces TurkBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the capabilities of generative large language models in the Turkish language. TurkBench involves 8,151 data samples across 21 distinct subtasks. These are organized under six main categories of evaluation: Knowledge, Language Understanding, Reasoning, Content Moderation, Turkish Grammar and Vocabulary, and Instruction Following. The diverse range of tasks and the culturally relevant data would provide researchers and developers with a valuable tool for evaluating their models and identifying areas for improvement. We further publish our benchmark for online submissions at https://huggingface.co/turkbench

Evaluating the Quality of Benchmark Datasets for Low-Resource Languages: A Case Study on Turkish

The reliance on translated or adapted datasets from English or multilingual resources introduces challenges regarding linguistic and cultural suitability. This study addresses the need for robust and culturally appropriate benchmarks by evaluating the quality of 17 commonly used Turkish benchmark datasets. Using a comprehensive framework that assesses six criteria, both human and LLM-judge annotators provide detailed evaluations to identify dataset strengths and shortcomings. Our results reveal that 70% of the benchmark datasets fail to meet our heuristic quality standards. The correctness of the usage of technical terms is the strongest criterion, but 85% of the criteria are not satisfied in the examined datasets. Although LLM judges demonstrate potential, they are less effective than human annotators, particularly in understanding cultural common sense knowledge and interpreting fluent, unambiguous text. GPT-4o has stronger labeling capabilities for grammatical and technical tasks, while Llama3.3-70B excels at correctness and cultural knowledge evaluation. Our findings emphasize the urgent need for more rigorous quality control in creating and adapting datasets for low-resource languages.