Fatemeh Azadi

Fatemeh Azadi, Heshaam Faili, Mohammad Javad Dousti

Translation Quality Estimation (QE) is the task of predicting the quality of machine translation (MT) output without any reference. This task has gained increasing attention as an important component in the practical applications of MT. In this paper, we first propose XLMRScore, which is a cross-lingual counterpart of BERTScore computed via the XLM-RoBERTa (XLMR) model. This metric can be used as a simple unsupervised QE method, nevertheless facing two issues: firstly, the untranslated tokens leading to unexpectedly high translation scores, and secondly, the issue of mismatching errors between source and hypothesis tokens when applying the greedy matching in XLMRScore. To mitigate these issues, we suggest replacing untranslated words with the unknown token and the cross-lingual alignment of the pre-trained model to represent aligned words closer to each other, respectively. We evaluate the proposed method on four low-resource language pairs of the WMT21 QE shared task, as well as a new English$\rightarrow$Persian (En-Fa) test dataset introduced in this paper. Experiments show that our method could get comparable results with the supervised baseline for two zero-shot scenarios, i.e., with less than 0.01 difference in Pearson correlation, while outperforming unsupervised rivals in all the low-resource language pairs for above 8%, on average.

Akriti Vij, Benjamin Chua, Darshini Ramiah et al.

As frontier AI models are deployed globally, it is essential that their behaviour remains safe and reliable across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. To examine how current model safeguards hold up in such settings, participants from the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the EU, France, Kenya, South Korea and the UK conducted a joint multilingual evaluation exercise. Led by Singapore AISI, two open-weight models were tested across ten languages spanning high and low resourced groups: Cantonese English, Farsi, French, Japanese, Korean, Kiswahili, Malay, Mandarin Chinese and Telugu. Over 6,000 newly translated prompts were evaluated across five harm categories (privacy, non-violent crime, violent crime, intellectual property and jailbreak robustness), using both LLM-as-a-judge and human annotation. The exercise shows how safety behaviours can vary across languages. These include differences in safeguard robustness across languages and harm types and variation in evaluator reliability (LLM-as-judge vs. human review). Further, it also generated methodological insights for improving multilingual safety evaluations, such as the need for culturally contextualised translations, stress-tested evaluator prompts and clearer human annotation guidelines. This work represents an initial step toward a shared framework for multilingual safety testing of advanced AI systems and calls for continued collaboration with the wider research community and industry.

Ee Wei Seah, Yongsen Zheng, Naga Nikshith et al.

The rapid rise of autonomous AI systems and advancements in agent capabilities are introducing new risks due to reduced oversight of real-world interactions. Yet agent testing remains nascent and is still a developing science. As AI agents begin to be deployed globally, it is important that they handle different languages and cultures accurately and securely. To address this, participants from The International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Kenya, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have come together to align approaches to agentic evaluations. This is the third exercise, building on insights from two earlier joint testing exercises conducted by the Network in November 2024 and February 2025. The objective is to further refine best practices for testing advanced AI systems. The exercise was split into two strands: (1) common risks, including leakage of sensitive information and fraud, led by Singapore AISI; and (2) cybersecurity, led by UK AISI. A mix of open and closed-weight models were evaluated against tasks from various public agentic benchmarks. Given the nascency of agentic testing, our primary focus was on understanding methodological issues in conducting such tests, rather than examining test results or model capabilities. This collaboration marks an important step forward as participants work together to advance the science of agentic evaluations.