LLM Evaluation · অসমীয়া
Assamese Data for LLM Evaluation
Human evaluation of large language model output in Indian languages, including cultural and factual fit. In Assamese, the binding constraint is usually dialect coverage and code-mixing, not raw hours.
- Language
- Assamese
- Primary metric
- Rubric scores with confidence intervals
- Typical volume
- 100-500 hours
Data profile required
- Native-speaker rater panels per language
- Rubric-based scoring with calibration
- Overlapping assignments for agreement
What Assamese adds to the requirement
- Assamese has the voiceless velar fricative /x/, unique among major Indian languages and routinely mis-modelled
- No retroflex-dental contrast in the way Hindi has it, so Hindi-derived phone sets over-generate
- Dialects to cover: Kamrupi, Goalparia, Upper Assam (Sibsagar standard), Barak Valley contact varieties
- Assamese speech mixes Hindi, English and Bengali, with substantial contact influence in Barak Valley and tea-garden communities.
Metrics to track
- Rubric scores with confidence intervals
- Inter-rater agreement
- Failure-mode distribution
Failure modes
- Raters who are fluent but not native in the variety
- Rubrics written in English and applied to non-English output without localisation
For Assamese specifically: Extremely low-resource. Almost no spontaneous Assamese speech data exists publicly, and non-standard dialects have none.
Recommended cohort
Expect longer fielding times and higher per-hour cost than for Hindi or Marathi; the speaker pool with transcription-grade literacy is smaller.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Assamese |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 50 / 50 | Pitch range differences change acoustic model behaviour; unbalanced cohorts bias recognition |
| Age | 18-25: 30%, 26-40: 40%, 41-60: 30% | Older speakers retain conservative Assamese forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Assam / Arunachal Pradesh / parts of Nagaland and Meghalaya and others | Dialect spread across 4 recognised varieties |
| Education | Mixed, including below-graduate | Prompt-reading fluency correlates with education and skews prosody |
| Condition | Studio / quiet room / field | Match the noise profile of your deployment |
Suggested programme shape
Start with an evaluation set of 80 speakers spread across every Assamese dialect in scope, collected before training data. Then field 100-500 hours of training data from disjoint speakers.
This ordering is what makes the improvement measurable rather than assumed.
Frequently asked
Is there usable public Assamese data for llm evaluation?
Extremely low-resource. Almost no spontaneous Assamese speech data exists publicly, and non-standard dialects have none.
How many Assamese speakers do we need?
300-800 speakers for a training corpus, plus a disjoint evaluation cohort covering each dialect. Speaker count matters more than hours for generalisation.
Can you run this across multiple languages at once?
Yes. Multi-language programmes run to one master specification so per-language results stay comparable.
Scope Assamese data for llm evaluation
Send the target metric and the languages in scope.