Glyph-level obfuscation can leave harmful Chinese content readable to humans while degrading automated moderation. We introduce SinoGlyphBench, a diagnostic benchmark that identifies label-critical semantic anchors and creates matched original and glyph-obfuscated inputs in text and image modalities. By perturbing anchors, background context, or both, this design distinguishes corruption of moderation-relevant evidence from general surface variation. Across 176,916 paired evaluations of 12 LLMs and MLLMs, obfuscation increases harmful false-negative and false-positive rates by 6.1 and 4.7 percentage points, respectively, and reduces four-way accuracy by 5.0 points. Models retain 75.7% of the decisions that were correct on the matched original inputs. Full-scope perturbations cause the largest degradation, anchor-only perturbations are more damaging than background-only perturbations, and cross-script substitution is particularly difficult in the text modality. Analysis of structured outputs identifies observable mismatches in visible-form reading, intended-message recovery, and final safety judgment. The evaluated models, therefore, remain brittle to Chinese content written with non-canonical glyphs. Resources are available at https://github.com/fengshun124/SinoGlyphBench.

Psychological defenses are strategies, often automatic, that people use to manage distress. Rigid use or overuse of defenses is negatively linked to mental health and shapes what speakers disclose and how they accept or resist help. However, defenses are complex and difficult to reliably measure, particularly in clinical dialogues. We introduce PsyDefConv, a dialogue corpus with help seeker utterances labeled for defense level, and DMRS Co-Pilot, a four-stage pipeline that provides evidence-based pre-annotations. The corpus contains 200 dialogues and 4,709 utterances, including 2,336 help seeker turns, with double-blind labeling reaching Cohen’s kappa of 0.639. In a counterbalanced study, the co-pilot reduced average annotation time by 24.0%. In expert review, it averaged 4.62 for evidence supportiveness, 4.44 for clinical plausibility, and 4.40 for insight on a seven-point scale. Benchmarks with strong large language models (LLMs) in zero-shot and fine-tuning settings demonstrate clear headroom, with the best macro F1-score around 30% and a tendency to overpredict mature defenses. Corpus analyses confirm that mature defenses are most common and reveal emotion-specific deviations. We release the corpus, annotations, code, and prompts to support research on defensive functioning in language.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for safety-critical engineering, yet their reliability in regulated functional-safety workflows remains underexplored. We introduce SAFARI (Safety-Aware Functional Automotive Risk Inference), the first industrial benchmark for LLM-assisted automotive Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) under ISO 26262. It contains 3,000 de-identified industrial HARA cases and evaluates two coupled tasks: open-ended hazard analysis and standards-grounded risk assessment. To evaluate open-ended HARA artifacts, we propose the first reference-anchored LLM-as-a-judge protocol with high expert correlation. Experiments with nine frontier LLMs show that models often produce plausible hazard narratives but remain weak at ISO 26262 risk classification, with the best ASIL macro-F1 reaching only 0.261. Chain-of-Thought prompting provides limited benefit and often degrades categorical risk assessment. Error analysis further localizes major failures to scenario-critical context omissions during hazard generation and to controllability misjudgments during risk assessment, indicating where expert oversight should be concentrated. The dataset can be obtained from https://github.com/xixi47520-hash/HARA.

Phonetic Cloaking Replacement (PCR), defined as the deliberate use of homophonic or near-homophonic variants to hide toxic intent, has become a major obstacle to Chinese content moderation. While this problem is well-recognized, existing evaluations predominantly rely on rule-based, synthetic perturbations that ignore the creativity of real users. We organize PCR into a four-way surface-form taxonomy and compile PCR-ToxiCN, a dataset of 500 naturally occurring, phonetically cloaked offensive posts gathered from the RedNote platform. Benchmarking state-of-the-art LLMs on this dataset exposes a serious weakness: the best model reaches only an F1-score of 0.672, and zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting pushes performance even lower. Guided by error analysis, we revisit a Pinyin-based prompting strategy that earlier studies judged ineffective and show that it recovers much of the lost accuracy. This study offers the first comprehensive taxonomy of Chinese PCR, a realistic benchmark that reveals current detectors’ limits, and a lightweight mitigation technique that advances research on robust toxicity detection.

“Linguistic acceptability judgments are essential for evaluating how language models internalize human-like grammatical knowledge. Though some studies have evaluated large language mod-els (LLMs) in this context, existing research lacks systematic exploration of diverse learning paradigms in a multilingual setting. In this paper, we present the first multilingual evaluation of LLMs across four languages (English, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian) in the field of linguistic acceptability. Our evaluation spans both general-purpose (i.e., GPT-4o, GPT-4o mini,DeepSeek-V3, GLM-4-32B, and the Qwen series) and reasoning-oriented (QwQ-32B-Preview and DeepSeek-R1-32B) models under zero-shot and monolingual, cross-lingual and multilingual fine-tuning settings, with comparisons to pre-trained language model (PLM) baselines. Our analysis highlights the strong generalizability of large-scale LLMs through zero-shot prompting, the challenges of fine-tuning small-sized LLMs with skewed training data, the effectiveness of multilingual fine-tuning for low-resource languages, the scaling law exhibited on the task, and the limitation of reasoning-oriented models on the task, even when “aha moments” occur during the reasoning process.”