arXiv AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 21

Auditing Cross-Lingual Fairness in Language Model Watermarking

arXiv:2608. 20047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Watermarking schemes for large language model output are evaluated almost exclusively on English text using each scheme's detection threshold and a narrow set of quality measurements.

By Alexander Nemecek, Osama Zafar, Debargha Ganguly, Vikash Singh, Vipin Chaudhary, Erman Ayday
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 5

M-GATE: Multilingual Grammar, Accuracy in Translation, and Efficiency Benchmark for Large Language Models

arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.

By Tom\'a\v{s} Burkert, Angelika Peljak-{\L}api\'nska, David Zelen\'y
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8

Quad-State Safety Evaluation of Open-Weight Large Language Models on Non-Canonical Inputs

The paper introduces the Adversarial Surface-Form Robustness Dataset (ASRD), which contains 2,100 prompts across seven surface‑form families to test large language models on non‑canonical inputs. Five open‑weight models were evaluated on 10,500 responses, and a Quad‑State Evaluation Rubric categorized each response as harmful compliance, safe response, comprehension failure, or indeterminate. Results show that emoji and invisible Unicode variations produce few comprehension failures, while leetspeak, encoded wrappers, and hybrid transformations lead to high comprehension failure rates and varied harmful compliance percentages.

By Pavan Maddula
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 7

Are Language Models Script-Aware?

arXiv:2610.08037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models frequently generate outputs in unintended languages or scripts, a phenomenon known as off-target generation. While existing research ha...

By David Kletz, Sandra Mitrovi\'c, Ljiljana Dolami\'c, Fabio Rinaldi
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Automated Safety Benchmarks for Small Language Models

The paper investigates whether existing AI safety benchmarks, designed for large language models, are suitable for evaluating small language models (SLMs). By testing five benchmark suites on 26 open‑source SLMs with a unified scoring rubric, the authors find that ambiguous judgments dominate, especially for complex prompts and certain architectures. This ambiguity, linked to factors like lexical density and output perplexity, undermines the reliability of aggregate leaderboards and reveals a confound between model capability and perceived safety.

By Nyamtulla Shaik, Fengjun Li, Bo Luo
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 20

Auditing Cross-Lingual Fairness in Language Model Watermarking

Watermarking schemes for large language model output are evaluated almost exclusively on English text using each scheme's detection threshold and a narrow set of quality measurements. Multilingual deployment exposes evaluation-design choices that are inconsequential on English but determine conclusions cross-lingually.

arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago

Large Language Model probabilities cannot reliably distinguish between possible and impossible language

arXiv:2509.15114v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A controversial test for Large Language Models concerns the ability to discern possible from impossible language. While some evidence attests to th...

By Evelina Leivada, Raquel Montero, Paolo Morosi, Natalia Moskvina, Tamara Serrano, Nikoleta Pantelidou, Marcel Aguilar, Fritz Guenther
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 17

Modelling Adjectival Modification Effects on Semantic Plausibility

The paper investigates how adjectival modifiers affect the semantic plausibility of events, using the Adept benchmark of 16,000 English sentence pairs that differ by a single adjective. Experiments show that sentence transformers, despite being conceptually suited to the task, underperform compared to models like RoBERTa. The authors provide an error analysis and discuss the implications of their findings for future work on balancing training and test data.

By Anna Golub, Beate Zywietz, Annerose Eichel