LLM Evaluation · తెలుగు
Telugu Data for LLM Evaluation
Human evaluation of large language model output in Indian languages, including cultural and factual fit. In Telugu, the binding constraint is usually dialect coverage and code-mixing, not raw hours.
- Language
- Telugu
- Primary metric
- Rubric scores with confidence intervals
- Typical volume
- 500-2,000 hours
Data profile required
- Native-speaker rater panels per language
- Rubric-based scoring with calibration
- Overlapping assignments for agreement
What Telugu adds to the requirement
- Vowel-length contrasts are phonemic and short/long confusion changes meaning outright
- Telangana and Coastal Andhra differ in lexicon and morphology enough to behave as separate ASR domains
- Dialects to cover: Telangana, Coastal Andhra (Godavari), Rayalaseema, Srikakulam
- Hyderabad speech mixes Telugu, Urdu/Deccani, Hindi and English. A Telugu dataset for Hyderabad deployment must include Urdu-origin vocabulary.
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 Telugu specifically: Coastal Andhra read speech dominates. Telangana rural and Rayalaseema speech is thin, despite Hyderabad being the largest deployment market.
Recommended cohort
Split cohorts explicitly between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and tag every speaker; models trained without the tag cannot be evaluated per region.
| Dimension | Typical split | Why it matters for Telugu |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Telugu forms that younger urban speakers have lost |
| Region | Andhra Pradesh / Telangana / parts of Karnataka and Odisha 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 Telugu dialect in scope, collected before training data. Then field 500-2,000 hours of training data from disjoint speakers.
This ordering is what makes the improvement measurable rather than assumed.
Frequently asked
Is there usable public Telugu data for llm evaluation?
Coastal Andhra read speech dominates. Telangana rural and Rayalaseema speech is thin, despite Hyderabad being the largest deployment market.
How many Telugu speakers do we need?
1,000-3,000 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 Telugu data for llm evaluation
Send the target metric and the languages in scope.