LLM Evaluation · ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Punjabi Data for LLM Evaluation
Human evaluation of large language model output in Indian languages, including cultural and factual fit. In Punjabi, the binding constraint is usually dialect coverage and code-mixing, not raw hours.
- Language
- Punjabi
- 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 Punjabi adds to the requirement
- Punjabi is tonal: high, low and level tones distinguish words, and tone is not marked in Gurmukhi orthography
- Historical voiced aspirates surface as tone rather than aspiration, which confounds shared Indic phone sets
- Dialects to cover: Majhi (standard), Malwai, Doabi, Puadhi
- Punjabi speech mixes Hindi and English freely, with strong diaspora influence in urban registers.
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 Punjabi specifically: Tonal variation is essentially unmodelled in public Punjabi data, and Malwai/Doabi rural speech is scarce.
Recommended cohort
Cover all three historic regions (Majha, Malwa, Doaba); tone realisation differs measurably between them.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Punjabi |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Punjabi forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Punjab / Haryana / Delhi 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 Punjabi 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 Punjabi data for llm evaluation?
Tonal variation is essentially unmodelled in public Punjabi data, and Malwai/Doabi rural speech is scarce.
How many Punjabi 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 Punjabi data for llm evaluation
Send the target metric and the languages in scope.