MÖVE: A Holistic LLM Benchmark for the German Public Sector

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13111v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:37:45 GMT
• Title: MÖVE: A Holistic LLM Benchmark for the German Public Sector
• Abstract summary: We present MVE (Modelle fr die ffentliche Verwaltung Evaluieren), a holistic benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the German public sector.<n>MVE addresses these gaps by evaluating 39 models across two complementary dimensions.<n>We employ a multi-metric evaluation strategy combining classical NLP metrics, embedding-based methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches.
• Score: 0.5154323601107853
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We present MÖVE (Modelle für die Öffentliche Verwaltung Evaluieren), a holistic benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the context of the German public sector. While LLMs are increasingly adopted in public administration, model selection remains largely ad hoc, and existing benchmarks offer limited guidance: they are predominantly English-centric, US-centric in content, and focus exclusively on task performance. MÖVE addresses these gaps by evaluating 39 models across two complementary dimensions. Performance criteria cover summarization, question answering, and topic extraction. Governance criteria assess hallucination tendencies, energy consumption, provider transparency, and alignment with German constitutional values and knowledge about positions by German political parties. In total, we utilize ten German-language datasets, including gold- and silverstandard datasets that we constructed to reflect public-administration domains. We employ a multi-metric evaluation strategy combining classical NLP metrics, embedding-based methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our results show that no single model dominates across all criteria: top performers differ between tasks, and model size alone is a poor predictor of quality. We further evaluate the benchmark itself, analyzing its statistical precision, LLM judge reliability, the impact of our private datasets on model rankings, the sensitivity of our results to prompt formulation, and the validity of our energy consumption estimates. MÖVE is designed as a living benchmark under active development; results are publicly available at https://moeve.bundesdruckerei.de/.

Related papers

• From Global Benchmarks to Local Evaluations: Benchmarking LLMs for the German Public Sector [0.5154323601107853]
  We present first results of MVE, a holistic evaluation framework for the German public sector.<n>Our results reveal significant trade-offs, with no single model excelling across all dimensions.<n> evaluations should also reflect the governance requirements of the deployment context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T14:28:33Z)
• From Values to Benchmarks: Evaluating Large Language Models for Governmental Use in Dutch [28.99138735973746]
  "Grip on LLMs" is a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use.<n>We identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency)<n>We operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T17:59:05Z)
• Nonparametric LLM Evaluation from Preference Data [86.96268870461472]
  We propose a nonparametric statistical framework, DMLEval, for comparing and ranking large language models (LLMs) from preference data.<n>Our framework provides practitioners with powerful, state-of-the-art methods for comparing or ranking LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T15:00:07Z)
• A Transparent Fairness Evaluation Protocol for Open-Source Language Model Benchmarking on the Blockchain [0.18570740863168358]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in realworld applications, yet concerns about their fairness persist.<n>This paper introduces transparent evaluation protocol for benchmarking the fairness of opensource LLMs using smart contracts on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) blockchain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T22:49:00Z)
• IberBench: LLM Evaluation on Iberian Languages [2.3034630097498883]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are difficult to evaluate comprehensively, particularly for languages other than English.<n>We present IberBench, a benchmark designed to assess LLM performance on both fundamental and industry-relevant NLP tasks.<n>We evaluate 23 LLMs ranging from 100 million to 14 billion parameters and provide empirical insights into their strengths and limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T17:48:25Z)
• BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics.<n>These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T16:56:52Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks.<n>To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets.<n>We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Disce aut Deficere: Evaluating LLMs Proficiency on the INVALSI Italian Benchmark [12.729687989535359]
  evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in languages other than English is crucial for ensuring their linguistic versatility, cultural relevance, and applicability in diverse global contexts. We tackle this challenge by introducing a structured benchmark using the INVALSI tests, a set of well-established assessments designed to measure educational competencies across Italy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T13:20:08Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models [61.69950787311278]
  We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score and perplexity do not always agree on model ranking; (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T17:14:38Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.