Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2411.10954 v1 pith:TUJBK2LI submitted 2024-11-17 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords dialectalllmstoxicityconsistencyacrossareadetectionlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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}

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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...

  2. Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools