When Does Fine-Tuning Matter for a Low-Resource Language? Evaluating Open-Weight LLMs on Kazakh Benchmarks

Information, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/info17090921
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Fine-tuning is often treated as a prerequisite for deploying large language models in low-resource languages, yet its value for recent open-weight models is unclear. We evaluate eleven checkpoints of 7–14 billion parameters before and after Low-Rank Adaptation on 5000 human-curated Kazakh instruction–response pairs. Evaluation is performed on the Kazakh splits of KazMMLU, ARC, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, and GSM8K, with Russian GSM8K as a higher-resource comparison. Our central finding is a language asymmetry: the same Kazakh-trained adapters improved Russian GSM8K more than the Kazakh GSM8K they targeted. Excluding one checkpoint that collapsed after fine-tuning by up to 58 percentage points, the remaining ten gained +2.6 percentage points on average on Kazakh (range −6.1 to +13.6) against +6.9 on Russian, significant under a paired signed-rank test. A manual audit of 400 responses identifies a contributing mechanism: Kazakh outputs were more often truncated before a final answer, and correct Kazakh reasoning more often scored wrong by answer extraction, so part of the gap reflects response form, not reasoning. Adaptation produced no meaningful average change on the four multiple-choice benchmarks. GSM8K is the suite’s only free-form task, so generality is untested. These results suggest that low-resource fine-tuning should be evaluated per checkpoint, benchmark, and language rather than being adopted by default.