As large language models (LLMs) see increasing adoption across the globe, it is imperative for LLMs to be representative of the linguistic diversity of the world. India is a linguistically diverse country of 1.4 Billion people. To facilitate research on multilingual LLM evaluation, we release IndicGenBench — the largest benchmark for evaluating LLMs on user-facing generation tasks across a diverse set 29 of Indic languages covering 13 scripts and 4 language families. IndicGenBench is composed of diverse generation tasks like cross-lingual summarization, machine translation, and cross-lingual question answering. IndicGenBench extends existing benchmarks to many Indic languages through human curation providing multi-way parallel evaluation data for many under-represented Indic languages for the first time. We evaluate stateof-the-art LLMs like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, PaLM2, and LLaMA on IndicGenBench in a variety of settings. The largest PaLM-2 models performs the best on most tasks, however, there is a significant performance gap in all languages compared to English showing that further research is needed for the development of more inclusive multilingual language models. IndicGenBench isavailable at www.github.com/google-researchdatasets/indic-gen-bench

Measurements of fairness in NLP have been critiqued for lacking concrete definitions of biases or harms measured, and for perpetuating a singular, Western narrative of fairness globally. To combat some of these pivotal issues, methods for curating datasets and benchmarks that target specific harms are rapidly emerging. However, these methods still face the significant challenge of achieving coverage over global cultures and perspectives at scale. To address this, in this paper, we highlight the utility and importance of complementary approaches that leverage both community engagement as well as large generative models, in these curation strategies. We specifically target the harm of stereotyping and demonstrate a pathway to build a benchmark that covers stereotypes about diverse, and intersectional identities. We discuss the two approaches, their advantages and constraints, the characteristics of the data they produce, and finally, their potential to be used complementarily for better evaluation of stereotyping harms.