Validity in agentic AI evaluation degrades multiplicatively across task generation, simulation, and judging, so most reported benchmark scores retain far less information than they appear to.
Dialectal Toxicity Detection: Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Consistency Across Language Varieties
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
There has been little systematic study on how dialectal differences affect toxicity detection by modern LLMs. Furthermore, although using LLMs as evaluators ("LLM-as-a-judge") is a growing research area, their sensitivity to dialectal nuances is still underexplored and requires more focused attention. In this paper, we address these gaps through a comprehensive toxicity evaluation of LLMs across diverse dialects. We create a multi-dialect dataset through synthetic transformations and human-assisted translations, covering 10 language clusters and 60 varieties. We then evaluated three LLMs on their ability to assess toxicity across multilingual, dialectal, and LLM-human consistency. Our findings show that LLMs are sensitive in handling both multilingual and dialectal variations. However, if we have to rank the consistency, the weakest area is LLM-human agreement, followed by dialectal consistency. Code repository: \url{https://github.com/ffaisal93/dialect_toxicity_llm_judge}
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.AI 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
Validity in agentic AI evaluation degrades multiplicatively across task generation, simulation, and judging, so most reported benchmark scores retain far less information than they appear to.