LLM Evaluation · ગુજરાતી
Gujarati Data for LLM Evaluation
Human evaluation of large language model output in Indian languages, including cultural and factual fit. In Gujarati, the binding constraint is usually dialect coverage and code-mixing, not raw hours.
- Language
- Gujarati
- Primary metric
- Rubric scores with confidence intervals
- Typical volume
- 250-1,000 hours
Data profile required
- Native-speaker rater panels per language
- Rubric-based scoring with calibration
- Overlapping assignments for agreement
What Gujarati adds to the requirement
- Murmured (breathy-voiced) vowels are phonemic in Gujarati and are absent from most shared Indic acoustic models
- Surti speech has distinctive intonation and vowel quality that mismatches Ahmedabad-trained models
- Dialects to cover: Standard (Amdavadi), Surti, Kathiyawadi, Kachchhi-influenced
- Business and trade vocabulary is heavily English; Gujarati diaspora speech adds further English structure. Specify whether diaspora speakers are in or out of scope.
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 Gujarati specifically: Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
Recommended cohort
Surat and Rajkot recruitment is essential for dialect coverage; Ahmedabad-only cohorts sound uniform.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Gujarati |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Gujarati forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Gujarat / Daman & Diu / Dadra & Nagar Haveli and others | Dialect spread across 5 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 100 speakers spread across every Gujarati dialect in scope, collected before training data. Then field 250-1,000 hours of training data from disjoint speakers.
This ordering is what makes the improvement measurable rather than assumed.
Frequently asked
Is there usable public Gujarati data for llm evaluation?
Very little spontaneous Gujarati audio exists publicly; nearly all of it is Ahmedabad read speech.
How many Gujarati speakers do we need?
500-1,500 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 Gujarati data for llm evaluation
Send the target metric and the languages in scope.