HFEPX · Eval paper review
Mohsinul Kabir, Md. Tariquzzaman, Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Tharindu Ranasinghe +1 more
Published
Oct 16, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Oct 16, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu. We introduce BanglaShield, a resource and model for graded prompt-safety classification across these written forms. We consolidate 10,245 Bangla prompts from six sources under a four-level taxonomy (Safe, Offensive, Harmful, Severe) and render each prompt in three aligned forms that share labels and a group-aware split, enabling strictly paired comparisons. Benchmarking six contemporary LLMs, including a Bangla-specialized one, on 36,882 classification queries and 24,318 judged responses, we find that LLM classifiers label 47.0% of unsafe native-script prompts as Safe, rising to 63.4% under romanization, while response-level safety accuracy drops by 10.3 points. Three multilingual guard models also pass 30.3-57.3% of unsafe native-script prompts. Using a model's own classification as an input filter reduces harmful compliance by only about five points. In contrast, BanglaShield, a compact fine-tuned encoder, reaches 87.8 macro-F1 on native-script and 84.4 on romanized prompts, outperforming the best LLM on each form by 42.8-46.1 points with ~130x fewer parameters than Gemma 4 31B. We release the corpus, splits, judgments, and model.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu."
Accuracy, F1, F1 macro
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Benchmarking six contemporary LLMs, including a Bangla-specialized one, on 36,882 classification queries and 24,318 judged responses, we find that LLM classifiers label 47.0% of unsafe native-script prompts as Safe, rising to 63.4% under romanization, while response-level safety accuracy drops by 10.3 points."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Safety classifiers for large language models (LLMs) are typically built and evaluated on standard-script text, yet Bangla, like many lower-resource languages, is routinely written in native script, in Latin-script romanization, and code-mixed with English, Hindi, or Urdu.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy, f1, f1 macro
