最新资讯
bloomberg.com 科技股抛售后,Anthropic IPO 估值承压 dev.to 当“按设计工作”成为问题:Claude Code 与 .NET 用户机密 dev.to 用代理修复 3500 个 Sonar 问题花 44 美元,让结果可信花 520 美元 dev.to 底层陷阱:为何企业 AI 使用率跑赢其 EBIT 影响 thenewstack.io Cursor 推出全托管应用部署,对标 Lovable 与 Replit techrepublic.com METR 评估显示 Anthropic 模型进展近乎翻倍,IT 采购方需关注什么 bloomberg.com Nvidia AI 芯片出口成为民主党国会关注目标 computerworld.com Meta 撤回争议性企业 AI 条款 bloomberg.com 台积电据报考虑生产先进 AI 存储芯片 www.infoq.com Yelp 为 AI Assistant 融合原生与服务器驱动 UI computerworld.com 英国监管机构:企业须为自家 AI 代理的错误负责 siliconangle.com Atomicwork 推出面向企业 IT 与安全的认证 AI 同事市场
多元动态
登录 注册
大模型 arxiv.org ·

论文提出“Missed-in-Urdu”指标,量化 LLM 仇恨言论检测的跨文字系统安全不一致性

原文 我的收藏

该论文测试 GPT-4o、Claude Sonnet 4.5、Gemini 2.5 Flash、Qwen-2.5 和 Llama-3.1 在 Nastaliq 乌尔都语、罗马化乌尔都语、英语及乌英混用六套数据集上的表现。结果显示,五个乌尔都语脚本数据集的标签不稳定率为 15.9%(Gemini 2.5 Flash)至 31.6%(Qwen-2.5);“Missed-in-Urdu”率(英文翻译中被判有害、原脚本中被判正常)为 2.4% 至 9.9%,中位数 4.3%。作者还通过 ACL Anthology API 枚举九届 ALW/WOAH 的 205 篇论文,确认无专门针对乌尔都语的研究。结论认为当前 LLM 对乌尔都语不同书写变体的安全保障不均衡,小型开源模型的不稳定性与漏检率明显高于前沿闭源模型。

AI推荐理由 arXiv 论文(v2,2026-09-09 修订),有明确实验设计:在 GPT-4o、Claude Sonnet 4.5、Gemini 2.5 Flash、Qwen-2.5、Llama-3.1 五个模型上,跨 Nastaliq 乌尔都语、罗马化乌尔都语、英语及乌英混用六套数据集测试。给出具体量化结果:乌尔都语脚本数据集上标签不稳定率 15.9%(Gemini 2.5 Flash)至 31.6%(Qwen-2.5),'Missed-in-Urdu' 率 2.4%–9.9%(中位数 4.3%),并通过 ACL Anthology API 枚举九届 ALW/WOAH 共 205 篇论文确认零篇专门针对乌尔都语。新信息在于提出跨文字系统安全不一致性的可量化指标,对多语言内容审核与安全评测有直接参考价值;局限是仅覆盖五个模型与特定数据集,未提供部署层面的缓解方案。

78

正文

Computer Science > Computation and Language arXiv:2608.24191 (cs) [Submitted on 25 Aug 2026 (v1), last revised 9 Sep 2026 (this version, v2)] Title:'Ghaib in Translation' aka Unseen Harm: Measuring Cross-Script Safety Inconsistency with 'Missed-in-Urdu' Scores in LLM Hate Speech Detection Authors:Fawzia Zehra (Fuzzy)Kara-Isitt, Sonal Khosla, Stephen Swift View a PDF of the paper titled 'Ghaib in Translation' aka Unseen Harm: Measuring Cross-Script Safety Inconsistency with 'Missed-in-Urdu' Scores in LLM Hate Speech Detection, by Fawzia Zehra (Fuzzy) Kara-Isitt and 1 other authors View PDF Abstract:Urdu, the world's tenth most spoken language with 246 million speakers, remains almost entirely absent from mainstream LLM safety evaluation and nine years of WOAH proceedings. To investigate whether this absence has measurable consequences for content moderation reliability, five large language models, GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen-2.5, and Llama-3.1, were tested across six datasets spanning Nastaliq Urdu, Roman Urdu, English, and code-switched Urdu-English. Across the five Urdu-script datasets, label instability between original-script and English-translation classification ranged from 15.9% (Gemini 2.5 Flash) to 31.6% (Qwen-2.5), with a 'Missed-in-Urdu' rate, content flagged as harmful in English translation but passed as normal in the original script, ranging from 2.4% to 9.9% (median 4.3%). A complete enumeration of all 205 papers across nine ALW/WOAH editions via the ACL Anthology API confirms zero dedicated Urdu papers across the entire period. Results indicate that current LLMs provide uneven safety assurance across Urdu's script varieties, with smaller open-weight models showing substantially higher instability and missed-harm rates than frontier closed models. Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.24191 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2608.24191v2 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.24191 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Fawzia Zehra Kara-Isitt Dr. [view email] [v1] Tue, 25 Aug 2026 07:58:40 UTC (377 KB) [v2] Wed, 9 Sep 2026 16:54:05 UTC (928 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled 'Ghaib in Translation' aka Unseen Harm: Measuring Cross-Script Safety Inconsistency with 'Missed-in-Urdu' Scores in LLM Hate Speech Detection, by Fawzia Zehra (Fuzzy) Kara-Isitt and 1 other authors View PDF view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar export BibTeX citation Loading... BibTeX formatted citation × loading... Data provided by: Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

来源报道 · 1 篇 · 以下链接均前往原始媒体

← 返回精选动态 原文

更多内容