Today’s digest highlights how language AI is being stress-tested in high-impact, domain-specific settings rather than only on general benchmarks. Across the papers, a clear theme is evaluation under real-world constraints: multilingual healthcare communication, Indonesian consumer sentiment, dental multimodal reasoning, and detection of AI-generated code all demand models that are reliable, context-aware, and tailored to specialized data. Another common thread is the comparison of classical and modern learning approaches, showing continued interest in whether lightweight baselines, deep models, and fine-tuned foundation models each offer distinct advantages for applied language technology.

Artificial intelligence language technologies in multilingual healthcare: Grand challenges ahead

AI language technologies (AILTs), increasingly enabled by large language models (LLMs), are becoming embedded in multilingual healthcare workflows for translation, rewriting, documentation, interpreting, and messaging in language-discordant settings. Yet fluent output is not the same as clinically safe or equitable communication: performance varies across languages, accents, tasks, and workflows, and efficiency gains can hide errors, reduce traceability, and shift responsibility across clinicians, translators, interpreters, and health systems. This narrative review synthesises recent peer-reviewed evidence across written communication, spoken communication, and emerging agentic workflows. Using the Human-Centered AI Language Technology (HCAILT) lens, it examines capabilities, evaluation practices, implementation patterns, and recurrent errors through reliability, safety culture, and trustworthiness. We identify key convergences and contradictions in the literature and propose seven grand challenges for the next phase of research and deployment. Progress, we argue, requires not only better models but also accountable sociotechnical design, calibrated human oversight, and stronger collaboration across MT/NLP, translation studies, HCI, clinical practice, implementation science, and policy.

Benchmarking LightGBM and BiLSTM for Sentiment Analysis on Indonesian E-Commerce Reviews

This study presents a comparative analysis between two primary approaches in Natural Language Processing (NLP): Machine Learning (ML) utilizing the PyCaret AutoML framework, and Deep Learning (DL). The evaluation is conducted on a sentiment analysis task using an Indonesian e-commerce review dataset sourced from Hugging Face. The dataset, consisting of 15,000 samples, is partitioned into training, validation, and testing sets. The ML experiments compare LightGBM, Logistic Regression, and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms, whereas the DL experiment implements a Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) architecture. The experimental results demonstrate that the BiLSTM model outperforms all ML models, achieving an accuracy of 98.87\% and an F1-Score of 98.87\%. Meanwhile, LightGBM emerges as the best-performing ML model with an accuracy of 98.23\% in a highly efficient training time. This research proves that the BiLSTM architecture is highly capable of capturing the sequential context of Indonesian review texts, making it the superior model for this specific classification task.

Sentiment Analysis of Mobile Legends App Reviews Using Machine Learning and LSTM-Based Deep Learning Models

This paper compares Machine Learning and LSTM-based Deep Learning methods for sentiment analysis of Mobile Legends app reviews. Using a dataset of 10,000 reviews labeled as positive, negative, and neutral, the study evaluates traditional models with TF-IDF and PyCaret AutoML and compares them against an LSTM model designed to capture sequential text dependencies. The results show that the LSTM model outperforms the classical Machine Learning baselines, achieving 92% accuracy and a weighted F1-score of 91%. The findings indicate that deep learning is more effective for handling informal and context-dependent user review text.

OralMLLM-Bench: Evaluating Cognitive Capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models in Dental Practice

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for dental image analysis. However, their ability to capture the multi-level cognitive processes required for radiographic analysis remains unclear. Here, we present a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the cognitive capabilities of MLLMs in dental radiographic analysis. It spans three critical imaging modalities, i.e., periapical, panoramic, and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and defines four cognitive categories: perception, comprehension, prediction, and decision-making. The benchmark comprises 27 clinically grounded tasks derived from public datasets, with manually curated annotations and 3,820 clinician assessments for evaluation. Six frontier MLLMs, including GPT-5.2 and GLM-4.6, are evaluated. We demonstrate the performance gap between MLLMs and clinicians in dental practice, delineate model strengths and limitations, characterize failure patterns, and provide recommendations for improvement. This data resource will facilitate the development of next-generation artificial intelligence systems aligned with clinical cognition, safety requirements, and workflow complexity in dental practice.

Fine-Tuning Pre-Trained Code Models for AI-Generated Code Detection

This paper describes the system submitted by team \textbf{Archaeology} to SemEval-2026 Task~13 on AI-generated code detection. The shared task consists of three subtasks; we participate in Subtask-A (binary classification: human-written vs. AI-generated code) and Subtask-B (11-class attribution of the generating model). Starting from a TF-IDF and Logistic Regression baseline, we fine-tune four pre-trained code models (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, UniXcoder, and CodeT5+) with separate strategies for each subtask. For Subtask-A, we use leave-one-language-out cross-validation, code augmentation, chunked inference with trimmed-mean aggregation, and threshold calibration on a difficult dataset. For Subtask-B, we use sandwich token packing, class-balanced loss, and multi-seed ensembling with test-time augmentation. Our best submissions obtain macro-F1 scores of 0.737 on Subtask-A (6th/81 teams) and 0.422 on Subtask-B (7th/34 teams).