AtlasNLP: A Country-Aware Atlas of Dataset Representation in NLP

Understanding which countries are represented in NLP datasets is essential for identifying gaps, targeting data collection, measuring progress, and informing AI policy. However, geographic metadata is very rarely available, and country-level representation is often hidden behind broad language-level claims. We introduce AtlasNLP, a country-aware atlas of over 13,000 NLP dataset records across normalized NLP task categories, tracking both the populations represented and where datasets are produced. AtlasNLP includes AtlasNLP-Gold, a human-curated reference set, and AtlasNLP-Core, an ACL-derived large-scale collection. Using this resource, we show that (1) dataset coverage is highly uneven across countries and tasks; (2) dataset production and representation are geographically asymmetric; and (3) language coverage does not imply geographic representation. These findings reveal blind spots in current dataset documentation practices and motivate more explicit geographic metadata for country-aware NLP evaluation.

Benchmarks Are Not Monolithic: Sample-Level Auditing and Orchestration for LLM Evaluation

Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples. We introduce a dataset-centric meta-evaluation framework that audits benchmark datasets at the sample level along five latent dimensions: 1. Cognitive and Knowledge Demands, 2. Language and Content Quality, 3. Task Properties, 4. Context, and 5. Ethics, Safety, and Fairness. Applying this framework, we annotate five influential benchmarks -- MMLU, ARC, WinoGrande, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA -- revealing pronounced internal heterogeneity that is not captured by aggregate accuracy scores. We show how these annotations enable criterion-driven orchestration of composite benchmark subsets across datasets, supporting targeted evaluation of model capabilities such as Reasoning Depth or Ethical Sensitivity. This approach reframes benchmark evaluation as dataset introspection, providing a principled methodology for analyzing and re-composing existing benchmarks to better reflect diverse evaluation needs.