Not What a Child Expressed: Auditing the Sign-to-Text Safety Interface in Child-Facing AI

Sign Language Translation has advanced with deep learning, yet evaluations remain largely signer-dependent, with overlapping signers across train/dev/test. This raises concerns about whether models truly generalise or instead rely on signer-specific regularities. We conduct signer-fold cross-validation on GFSLT-VLP, GASLT, and SignCL, three leading, publicly available, gloss-free SLT models, on CSL-Daily and PHOENIX14T. Under signer-independent evaluation, performance drops sharply: on PHOENIX14T, GFSLT-VLP falls from BLEU-4 21.44 to 3.59 and ROUGE-L 42.49 to 11.89; GASLT from 15.74 to 8.26; and SignCL from 22.74 to 3.66. We also observe that in CSL-Daily many target sentences are performed by multiple signers, so common splits can place identical sentences in both training and test, inflating absolute scores by rewarding recall of recurring sentences rather than genuine generalisation. These findings indicate that signer-dependent evaluation can substantially overestimate SLT capability. We recommend: (1) adopting signer-independent protocols to ensure generalisation to unseen signers; (2) restructuring datasets to include explicit signer-independent, sentence-disjoint splits for consistent benchmarking; and (3) reporting both signer-dependent and signer-independent results together with train-test sentence overlap to improve transparency and comparability.

Sign Languages (SLs) are the primary means of communication for millions of deaf individuals, yet existing evaluation metrics for generated SL remain simplistic and poorly aligned with human judgements. We introduce BackTranslation2.0, a linguistically grounded evaluation metric for text-to-sign translation that moves beyond naïve backtranslation. Our approach adopts an agentic framework in which a deterministic pipeline orchestrates a suite of specialised tools to assess four scoring dimensions - grammatical correctness, phonological accuracy, motion fluency, and generation fidelity - aligned with human rater assessments. Tool outputs are not treated independently: a set of large language model (LLM)-based cross-referential comparison modules evaluates consistency across tools and checks outputs against linguistic expectations, enabling structured reasoning over grammatical, phonological, and motion-level evidence. Final dimension scores are computed through deterministic weighted formulas over validated tool outputs. To validate BackTranslation2.0, we introduce and evaluate on a British Sign Language (BSL) dataset rated in a human rater study across the same quality dimensions, following a protocol developed in collaboration between linguists and deaf experts, benchmarking against six baseline metrics. Our method demonstrates strong correlation with human judgements across all dimensions, providing a more comprehensive, interpretable, and linguistically principled evaluation framework for sign language production systems.

How can we evaluate whether frontier AI systems recognize child-safety risks before they escalate into explicit harm? Existing child safety evaluations focus on child sexual abuse material, yet many child-safety failures begin earlier: in model assistance that helps adults manipulate, impersonate, profile, or isolate minors, and in model responses that deepen children's emotional dependence on AI systems rather than redirecting them toward human support. We introduce CAREBench (Child AI Risk Evaluation), a benchmark to assess such upstream child-safety risks in language models. CAREBench contains 500 prompts spanning twelve risk categories, including grooming and relationship engineering, deception and impersonation, surveillance and privacy, sextortion and sexual abuse, AI anthropomorphization, emotional dependency, and mental illness sensitivity. Developed with response annotations from parents and clinicians, the benchmark excludes explicit abuse material and imagery; instead, it evaluates whether models recognize, refuse, de-escalate, or redirect risky interactions before harm becomes overt. Evaluating seven frontier models on our benchmark, we find failure rates ranging from 2% to 58%, with failure patterns that vary across risk categories. CAREBench provides a responsibly scoped evaluation for LLM developers to identify and close gaps in child safety policies.