Apply for AI Grants India

What a useful Hinglish benchmark must measure

Benchmarking Hinglish is not simply running a Hindi or English test set through a multilingual model. Hinglish varies by speaker, region, context, script, and the degree of code-switching. The same sentence may mix English nouns with Hindi syntax, use Roman Hindi, switch into Devanagari, or contain transliterated slang and abbreviations.

A credible benchmark should therefore report performance across language mix, script, task, and domain. Record whether each example is primarily Hindi, primarily English, balanced Hinglish, or Hindi written in Roman script. Keep these labels separate from the target task so you can identify where a model succeeds or fails.

If your comparison includes Hindi-first small language models, review the current landscape in open-source small language models for Hindi. It will help you choose sensible baselines rather than comparing models with very different training objectives.

Define the task and evaluation split

Start with one clearly stated task. Common choices include:

• Text classification: sentiment, toxicity, intent, topic, or hate-speech detection.
• Sequence labelling: named-entity recognition, transliteration tags, or token-level language identification.
• Generation: response generation, summarisation, question answering, or translation.
• Language modelling: next-token prediction measured with loss and perplexity.
• Retrieval or reranking: selecting relevant passages for Hinglish queries.

Create at least three fixed splits: development, test, and a challenge set. The challenge set should contain examples that expose known weaknesses, such as Roman Hindi spelling variation, English technical terms, punctuation-free chat messages, and long code-switched inputs.

Avoid random row-level splitting when data comes from conversations, users, or documents. Put related examples in the same split to prevent leakage. Deduplicate near-identical text before splitting, and keep a record of dataset version, sampling rules, annotator instructions, and licensing.

For Indian-language work, a cross-language comparison can be useful. The workflow in benchmarking NLP models for Telugu and Sanskrit offers a useful model for reporting results across languages without hiding differences in data size or task difficulty.

Prepare a Hugging Face evaluation repository

Install a reproducible environment rather than relying on whatever happens to be installed on a notebook:

pip install -U transformers datasets evaluate accelerate\npip install scikit-learn pandas sentencepiece

Load your evaluation data with the datasets library. A practical dataset should include fields such as text, label, task, script, language_mix, and source. Do not silently normalise away information that matters. For example, retain the original text and create a separate normalised field for controlled experiments.

Load models through their repository IDs and pin the revision used for evaluation:

from datasets import load_dataset
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForSequenceClassification

model_id = "organisation/model-name"
revision = "main"  # replace with a commit hash for a locked run

tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id, revision=revision)
model = AutoModelForSequenceClassification.from_pretrained(model_id, revision=revision)
dataset = load_dataset("your-org/hinglish-benchmark", revision="main")

For generative models, use the correct chat template when one is supplied. Report decoding settings such as temperature, top-p, maximum new tokens, and seed. A model evaluated with greedy decoding is not directly comparable with one evaluated using high-temperature sampling.

Use task-appropriate metrics

No single score captures Hinglish quality. Select metrics that match the task and publish confidence intervals where possible.

• Classification: macro-F1, per-class precision and recall, accuracy, and calibration. Macro-F1 is especially important for imbalanced safety or intent datasets.
• Named-entity recognition: entity-level precision, recall, and F1, with results broken down by entity type and script.
• Generation: ROUGE or BLEU can support comparison, but pair them with semantic similarity and human ratings. Automatic metrics often penalise valid Hinglish phrasing.
• Question answering: exact match and token-level F1, plus a manual check for factuality and answer relevance.
• Language modelling: token-level loss and perplexity, reported separately for Hindi, English, balanced Hinglish, and Roman Hindi.
• Safety and toxicity: false-positive and false-negative rates by language mix, not only an aggregate safety score.

For generative evaluation, use identical prompts and reference material across models. Human evaluation should use a blind rubric covering correctness, fluency, code-switch appropriateness, cultural fit, and harmful or misleading content. Use at least two reviewers for a meaningful sample and report disagreement rather than presenting subjective scores as ground truth.

Run a reproducible benchmark

For classification, the Hugging Face pipeline is convenient for a first pass, while Trainer or a custom PyTorch loop gives more control. A minimal evaluation pattern is:

import evaluate
from transformers import pipeline

metric = evaluate.load("f1")
classifier = pipeline(
    "text-classification",
    model=model_id,
    tokenizer=model_id,
    device=0,
)

pred = classifier(dataset["test"]["text"], truncation=True)
y_pred = [item["label"] for item in pred]
y_true = dataset["test"]["label"]
print(metric.compute(predictions=y_pred, references=y_true, average="macro"))

In production benchmarking, add batching, maximum sequence length, warm-up runs, and latency measurements. Report throughput, peak memory, parameter count, and hardware alongside quality. A model with a slightly lower F1 score may be preferable if it is substantially cheaper to serve in an Indian customer-support setting.

Save every run as structured JSON or CSV containing the model revision, dataset revision, prompt version, tokenizer settings, hardware, software versions, seed, and metric outputs. Push the dataset card, evaluation script, and results table to a Hugging Face Space or repository so another team can reproduce the comparison.

Analyse errors instead of chasing one score

After the first run, slice results by:

• Roman Hindi versus Devanagari Hindi.
• Mostly Hindi, mostly English, and balanced Hinglish.
• Short chat messages versus long-form text.
• Urban and regional vocabulary, where legally and ethically collected.
• Spelling variation, slang, abbreviations, emojis, and punctuation.
• Code-switch boundaries, named entities, and technical terminology.

Inspect false positives and false negatives manually. For generation, classify failures as factual, grammatical, culturally inappropriate, untranslated, over-translated, or unsafe. This gives you a training and data roadmap that aggregate metrics cannot provide.

Consider evaluating a Hindi-only baseline, an English baseline, and a multilingual baseline. Models designed for efficient local deployment may be particularly relevant; compare this work with guidance on deploying large language models locally when latency and infrastructure are part of your decision.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Using machine-translated test data as the only benchmark: translation artifacts can make results look better than real user text.
• Mixing train and test users or conversations: this creates leakage.
• Reporting only accuracy: it hides minority-class and script-specific failures.
• Normalising all text aggressively: spelling, script, and code-switching are core properties of Hinglish.
• Comparing different prompts or decoding settings: control the evaluation protocol first.
• Publishing unlicensed scraped text: verify consent, privacy, and redistribution rights.
• Ignoring tokenizer behaviour: inspect sequence lengths, unknown tokens, and truncation for Roman Hindi.

Publish a benchmark others can trust

A strong Hugging Face benchmark release includes the dataset card, annotation guide, data statement, split logic, evaluation code, model revisions, hardware details, and known limitations. State which results are automatic and which come from human review. If the dataset contains personal or sensitive content, publish only what is necessary and apply appropriate redaction and access controls.

Repeat the benchmark when the model, tokenizer, prompt, or dataset changes. As of 2026, model repositories can change quickly, so a model name alone is not a sufficient record of what was evaluated. Pin commits, archive result files, and treat benchmark maintenance as an ongoing engineering task rather than a one-time leaderboard exercise.