2026-04-21原文

QIMMA قِمّة ⛰: A Quality-First Arabic LLM Leaderboard

QIMMA (Arabic for 'summit') is a quality-first Arabic LLM leaderboard that validates benchmarks before evaluation, revealing systematic quality issues in widely-used Arabic benchmarks. It consolidates 109 subsets from 14 benchmarks across 7 domains, applies multi-model automated assessment and human review, and ranks models with a focus on native Arabic capability. The leaderboard is the first to include code evaluation for Arabic LLMs.

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

QIMMA applies rigorous quality validation to Arabic benchmarks before model evaluation, uncovering significant errors and cultural biases.
The leaderboard consolidates over 52,000 samples from 14 benchmarks, spanning cultural, STEM, legal, medical, safety, poetry, and coding domains.
Top-ranked models include Qwen3.5-397B, Karnak, and Jais-2-70B-Chat, with Arabic-specialized models leading on cultural/linguistic tasks.
Code evaluation reveals that multilingual models outperform Arabic-specialized ones on programming tasks.

Why it matters

This matters because QIMMA applies rigorous quality validation to Arabic benchmarks before model evaluation, uncovering significant errors and cultural biases.

Technical impact

May affect model selection, inference cost, product capability, and evaluation benchmarks.

QIMMA قِمّة ⛰: A Quality-First Arabic LLM Leaderboard

Hugging Face

Models

Datasets

Spaces

Buckets new

Docs

Enterprise

Pricing

Back to Articles

QIMMA قِمّة ⛰: A Quality-First Arabic LLM Leaderboard

Community Article Published April 21, 2026

Upvote

Leen AlQadi

LeenAlQadi

tiiuae

Ahmed Alzubaidi

amztheory

tiiuae

Mohammed Alyafeai

Alyafeai

tiiuae

Maitha Alhammadi

MaithaAlhammadi

tiiuae

Shaikha Alsuwaidi

Shaikha710

tiiuae

Omar saif alkaabi

Omar-Alkaabi

tiiuae

Basma Boussaha

basma-b

tiiuae

Hakim Hacid

HakimHacid

tiiuae

🔍 The Problem: Arabic NLP Evaluation Is Fragmented and Unvalidated

⛰ What's in QIMMA?

🔬 The Quality Validation Pipeline

Stage 1: Multi-Model Automated Assessment

Stage 2: Human Annotation and Review

⚠️ What We Found: Systematic Quality Problems

By the Numbers

Taxonomy of Issues Found

💻 Code Benchmark: A Different Kind of Quality Work

⚙️ Evaluation Setup

Evaluation Framework

Metrics by Task Type

Prompt Templates

🏆 Leaderboard Results

The Size-Performance Relationship

🌟 What Makes QIMMA Different

🔗 Resources

🔖 Citation

QIMMA validates benchmarks before evaluating models, ensuring reported scores reflect genuine Arabic language capability in LLMs.

🏆 Leaderboard · 🔧 GitHub · 📄 Paper

If you've been tracking Arabic LLM evaluation, you've probably noticed a growing tension: the number of benchmarks and leaderboards is expanding rapidly, but are we actually measuring what we think we're measuring?

We built QIMMA قمّة (Arabic for "summit"), to answer that question systematically. Instead of aggregating existing Arabic benchmarks as-is and running models on them, we applied a rigorous quality validation pipeline before any evaluation took place. What we found was sobering: even widely-used, well-regarded Arabic benchmarks contain systematic quality issues that can quietly corrupt evaluation results.

This post walks through what QIMMA is, how we built it, what problems we found, and what the model rankings look like once you clean things up.

🔍 The Problem: Arabic NLP Evaluation Is Fragmented and Unvalidated

Arabic is spoken by over 400 million people across diverse dialects and cultural contexts, yet the Arabic NLP evaluation landscape remains fragmented. A few key pain points have motivated this work:

Translation issues. Many Arabic benchmarks are translations from English. This introduces distributional shifts. Questions that feel natural in English become awkward or culturally misaligned in Arabic, making benchmark data less representative of how Arabic is naturally used.

Absent quality validation. Even native Arabic benchmarks are often released without rigorous quality checks. Annotation inconsistencies, incorrect gold answers, encoding errors, and cultural bias in ground-truth labels have all been documented in established resources.

Reproducibility gaps. Evaluation scripts and per-sample outputs are rarely released publicly, making it hard to audit results or build on prior work.

Coverage fragmentation. Existing leaderboards cover isolated tasks and narrow domains, making holistic model assessment difficult.

To illustrate where QIMMA sits relative to existing platforms:

Leaderboard Open Source Native Arabic Quality Validation Coding Eval Public Outputs

OALL v1✅Mixed❌❌✅

OALL v2✅Mostly❌❌✅

BALSAMPartial50%❌❌❌

AraGen✅100%✅❌❌

SILMA ABL✅100%✅❌✅

ILMAAMPartial100%✅❌❌

HELM Arabic✅Mixed❌❌✅

⛰ QIMMA ✅ 99% ✅ ✅ ✅

QIMMA is the only platform combining all five properties: open source, predominantly native Arabic content, systematic quality validation, code evaluation, and public per-sample inference outputs.

⛰ What's in QIMMA?

QIMMA consolidates 109 subsets from 14 source benchmarks into a unified evaluation suite of over 52,000 samples, spanning 7 domains:

Domain Benchmarks Task Types

CulturalAraDiCE-Culture, ArabCulture, PalmXMCQ

STEMArabicMMLU, GAT, 3LM STEMMCQ

LegalArabLegalQA, MizanQAMCQ, QA

MedicalMedArabiQ, MedAraBenchMCQ, QA

SafetyAraTrustMCQ

Poetry & LiteratureFannOrFlopQA

Coding3LM HumanEval+, 3LM MBPP+Code

A few things stand out about this design:

99% native Arabic content. The only exception is code evaluation, which is inherently language-agnostic.

First Arabic leaderboard with code evaluation. QIMMA integrates Arabic-adapted versions of HumanEval+ and MBPP+, making it possible to assess coding capability with Arabic-language problem statements.

Diversity in Domains and Tasks. QIMMA evaluates real-world competency areas including education, governance, healthcare, creative expression, and software development.

🔬 The Quality Validation Pipeline

This is the methodological heart of QIMMA. Before running a single model, we applied a multi-stage validation pipeline to every sample in every benchmark.

Stage 1: Multi-Model Automated Assessment

Each sample was independently evaluated by two state-of-the-art LLMs:

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct

DeepSeek-V3-671B

We chose two models with strong Arabic capability but different training data compositions, so that their combined judgment is more robust than either alone.

Each model scores a sample against a 10-point rubric, with binary scores (0 or 1) per criterion:

A sample is eliminated if either model scores it below 7/10. Samples where both models agree on elimination are dropped immediately. However, where only one model flags a sample, it proceeds to human review in Stage 2.

Stage 2: Human Annotation and Review

Flagged samples are reviewed by native Arabic speakers with cultural and dialectal familiarity. Human annotators make final calls on:

Cultural context and regional variation

Dialectal nuance

Subjective interpretation

Subtle quality issues automated assessment may miss

For culturally sensitive content, multiple perspectives are considered, since "correctness" can genuinely vary across Arab regions.

⚠️ What We Found: Systematic Quality Problems

The pipeline revealed recurring quality issues across benchmarks; not isolated errors, but systematic patterns reflecting gaps in how benchmarks were originally constructed.

By the Numbers

Benchmark Total Samples Discarded Discard Rate

ArabicMMLU 14,163 436 3.1%

MizanQA1,769412.3%

PalmX3,001250.8%

MedAraBench4,960330.7%

FannOrFlop6,984430.6%

ArabCulture3,48270.2%

MedArabiQ49910.2%

GAT13,9861~0.0%

3LM STEM2,6091~0.0%

AraDiCE-Culture18000.0%

ArabLegalQA7900.0%

AraTrust52200.0%

Taxonomy of Issues Found

⚖️ Answer Quality

False or mismatched gold indices, factually wrong answers, missing or raw text answers.

📄 Text & Formatting Quality

Corrupt or illegible text, spelling and grammar errors, and duplicate samples.

💬 Cultural Sensitivity

Stereotype reinforcement and monolithic generalizations about diverse communities.

🤝 Gold Answer Compliance

Misalignment of gold answers with evaluation protocols.

💻 Code Benchmark: A Different Kind of Quality Work

Code benchmarks required a different intervention. Rather than discarding samples, we refined the Arabic problem statements in 3LM's Arabic adaptations of HumanEval+ and MBPP+, leaving task identifiers, reference solutions, and test suites completely unchanged.

The modification rates were striking:

Benchmark Total Prompts Modified Unchanged Modification Rate

3LM HumanEval+1641451988%

3LM MBPP+3783087081%

Modifications fell into five categories:

Linguistic refinement : normalizing toward natural Modern Standard Arabic and consistent imperative style

Clarity improvements : fixing ambiguous instructions and unclear constraints

Consistency normalization : standardizing mathematical terminology, punctuation, and example formatting

Structural corrections : fixing broken triple-quoted strings, indentation errors, corrupted text fragments

Semantic refinements : clarifying whether ranges are inclusive/exclusive, preserving task intent

⚙️ Evaluation Setup

Evaluation Framework

QIMMA uses LightEval, EvalPlus and FannOrFlop as its evaluation framework, chosen for consistency, multilingual community adoption, and reproducibility.

Metrics by Task Type

Task Type Metric Benchmarks

MCQNormalized Log-Likelihood AccuracyAraDiCE-Culture, ArabicMMLU, ArabCulture, PalmX, 3LM STEM, MedArabiQ, GAT, MedAraBench, AraTrust

Multi-select MCQProbability Mass on Gold ChoicesMizanQA

Generative QAF1 BERTScore (AraBERT v02)MedArabiQ, ArabLegalQA, FannOrFlop

CodePass@13LM HumanEval+, 3LM MBPP+

Prompt Templates

QIMMA standardizes prompting by question format, with six template types:

MCQ: generic multiple choice · MCQ-C: multiple choice with context passage · MCQ-I: multiple choice with specific instructions (GAT analogy/completion) · QA: generic open-ended QA · QA-C: QA with context · QA-F: fill-in-the-blank QA

All prompts are in Arabic. For MizanQA and ArabCulture, benchmark-specific system prompts from the original papers are preserved.

🏆 Leaderboard Results

Results as of April 2026; covering top 10 evaluated models. Visit the live leaderboard for current rankings.

Rank Model AVERAGE AraDiCE-Culture ArabicMMLU ArabCulture PALMX 3LM STEM AraTrust MizanQA MedArabiQ ArabLegalQA GAT MedAraBench HumanEval+ MBPP+ FannOrFlop

🥇 1Qwen/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B-FP868.0682.7877.5461.7583.9188.6790.0473.3647.3054.9455.8947.9767.6876.7244.33

🥈 2Applied-Innovation-Center/Karnak66.2073.3380.9453.4981.4093.1089.0855.9255.7871.5861.0654.1933.5464.5558.91

🥉 3inceptionai/Jais-2-70B-Chat65.8178.8981.2983.2483.7387.9690.2371.7852.7969.6051.6750.8919.5143.6556.13

#4Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct65.7577.2273.7863.8377.7787.5588.5163.4950.0670.7455.9044.1937.2072.7557.51

#5Applied-Innovation-Center/AIC-165.3773.3372.0277.5276.1188.1390.6156.3653.7568.9662.1150.7828.0569.5847.83

#6Qwen/Qwen3.5-122B-A10B64.8474.4473.1737.7881.4686.1886.9764.0147.0455.1150.9052.4965.2472.4360.54

#7Sakalti/Ultiima-72B64.4978.3372.2868.7976.7583.7089.0860.4444.5869.1246.9142.2539.0274.0757.56

#8meta-llama/Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct63.9677.2271.5778.0577.9588.2885.6367.4456.2564.0051.1354.8627.4471.1624.43

#9Qwen/Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct63.2670.5668.7675.8072.0781.0385.8253.7848.0869.2756.9436.5134.1572.7593.10

#10FreedomIntelligence/AceGPT-v2-32B-Chat61.1476.6770.6279.7974.4684.8886.9763.8949.9671.4656.0447.3223.7854.5015.56

Scale does not guarantee best performance. The top 10 spans models from 32B to 397B parameters, with several mid-size models outperforming larger ones on specific domains.

Arabic-specialized models lead on cultural and linguistic tasks. Jais-2-70B-Chat ranks highest on ArabicMMLU and ArabCulture, while Karnak leads on 3LM STEM and ArabLegalQA.

Coding remains the hardest domain for Arabic-specialized models. The top HumanEval+ and MBPP+ scores belong to multilingual models, with Qwen3.5-397B leading both.

The Size-Performance Relationship

Across the full leaderboard (46 models), a clear but imperfect size-performance correlation emerges. However, there are interesting exceptions:

Arabic-specialized models often outperform size-matched multilingual models

Instruction-tuned models consistently outperform their base counterparts except for Qwen3

Some smaller Arabic-specialized models (Fanar-1-9B, ALLaM-7B) outperform much larger multilingual models on specific domains

🌟 What Makes QIMMA Different

To summarize the distinctive properties of QIMMA:

Property Details

Quality-first philosophyValidation runs before evaluation, not as an afterthought

Multi-model validationTwo LLMs with different training + human review for flagged cases

99% native ArabicAvoids translation artifacts almost entirely

Multi-domain, multi-task7 domains, 3 task types (MCQ, QA, code), 109 subsets

Code evaluationFirst Arabic leaderboard to include code generation

Full transparencyPer-sample inference outputs publicly released, not just aggregate scores

LightEval-basedUnified, reproducible evaluation codebase

Dialectal awarenessExplicit handling of MSA vs. dialectal variation in prompts and rubrics

🔗 Resources

🏆 Leaderboard: QIMMA Leaderboard

💻 Code: GitHub

📄 Paper: Are Arabic Benchmarks Reliable? QIMMA's Quality-First Approach to LLM Evaluation

🔖 Citation

@misc{alqadi2026arabicbenchmarksreliableqimmas, title={Are Arabic Benchmarks Reliable? QIMMA's Quality-First Approach to LLM Evaluation}, author={Leen AlQadi and Ahmed Alzubaidi and Mohammed Alyafeai and Hamza Alobeidli and Maitha Alhammadi and Shaikha Alsuwaidi and Omar Alkaabi and Basma El Amel Boussaha and Hakim Hacid}, year={2026}, eprint={2604.03395}, archivePrefix={arXiv}, primaryClass={cs.CL}, url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03395}, }