Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Far Out: Evaluating Language Models on Slang in Australian and Indian English

Deniz Kaya Dilsiz, Dipankar Srirag, Aditya Joshi · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.35

Abstract

Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages. We present a comprehensive evaluation of slang awareness in Indian English (en-IN) and Australian English (en-AU) across seven state-of-the-art language models. We construct two complementary datasets: WEB, containing 377 web-sourced usage examples from Urban Dictionary, and GEN, featuring 1,492 synthetically generated usages of these slang terms, across diverse scenarios. We assess language models on three tasks: target word prediction (TWP), guided target word prediction (TWP$^*$) and target word selection (TWS). Our results reveal four key findings: (1) Higher average model performance TWS versus TWP and TWP$^*$, with average accuracy score increasing from 0.03 to 0.49 respectively (2) Stronger average model performance on WEB versus GEN datasets, with average similarity score increasing by 0.03 and 0.05 across TWP and TWP$^*$ tasks respectively (3) en-IN tasks outperform en-AU when averaged across all models and datasets, with TWS demonstrating the largest disparity, increasing average accuracy from 0.44 to 0.54. These findings underscore fundamental asymmetries between generative and discriminative competencies for variety-specific language, particularly in the context of slang expressions despite being in a technologically rich language such as English.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Our results reveal four key findings: (1) Higher average model performance TWS versus TWP and TWP$^*$, with average accuracy score increasing from 0.03 to 0.49 respectively (2) Stronger average model performance on WEB versus GEN datasets, with average similarity score increasing by 0.03 and 0.05 across TWP and TWP$^*$ tasks respectively (3) en-IN tasks outperform en-AU when averaged across all models and datasets, with TWS demonstrating the largest disparity, increasing average accuracy from 0.44 to 0.54.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.35
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Language models exhibit systematic performance gaps when processing text in non-standard language varieties, yet their ability to comprehend variety-specific slang remains underexplored for several languages.
  • We present a comprehensive evaluation of slang awareness in Indian English (en-IN) and Australian English (en-AU) across seven state-of-the-art language models.
  • We construct two complementary datasets: WEB, containing 377 web-sourced usage examples from Urban Dictionary, and GEN, featuring 1,492 synthetically generated usages of these slang terms, across diverse scenarios.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present a comprehensive evaluation of slang awareness in Indian English (en-IN) and Australian English (en-AU) across seven state-of-the-art language models.
  • Our results reveal four key findings: (1) Higher average model performance TWS versus TWP and TWP^*, with average accuracy score increasing from 0.03 to 0.49 respectively (2) Stronger average model performance on WEB versus GEN datasets,…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We present a comprehensive evaluation of slang awareness in Indian English (en-IN) and Australian English (en-AU) across seven state-of-the-art language models.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.