REVIEW 2 cited by
Dialectal Toxicity Detection: Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Consistency Across Language Varieties
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Dialectal Toxicity Detection: Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Consistency Across Language Varieties
read the original 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}
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
Agentic evaluation pipelines can retain as little as a third of the intended measurement signal because task, simulation, and judgment errors multiply, while most published inter-rater reliability reporting is structu...
-
Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
Agentic AI evaluation validity is bounded by the product of task-generation, simulator, and judge reliability, leaving most current automated benchmarks with less than 30% valid signal.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.