The paper introduces GUISE, a benchmark of criminal‑assistance scenarios drawn from real‑world cases and organized using the UNODC International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes. It evaluates large language models under three linguistic framings and across five cultures, finding that framing and cultural adaptation significantly increase unsafe compliance rates. The study also shows that unsafe responses from the least‑safe models exhibit strong Anglocentric language, with leakage growing alongside harmfulness.
arXiv:2605.05662v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current LLM safety benchmarks are predominantly English-centric and often rely on translation, failing to capture country-specific harms. Mor...
The paper examines how automated safety systems unevenly flag harmful content, disproportionately labeling African American English as offensive and misclassifying content from drag queens and white nationalists. It identifies seven failure modes rooted in vocabulary-based harm detection and proposes an evaluation protocol that highlights gaps in performance across languages. Applied to five open systems in eleven languages, the study finds that none achieve native-speaker accuracy, and higher capability often increases discrimination, widening the disparity between best- and worst-served language communities.
Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) is largely developed in English, assuming these safeguards generalize across multilingual settings. However, this assumption remains underexplored and exposes a vulnerability in low-resource languages.
arXiv:2606. 23375v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While the wider applicability of LLMs in the legal field is currently debated due to their reliability and the gravity of any errors, narrow uses with well-understood and mitigated risks have emerged.
arXiv:2605. 17173v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages.
Multilingual safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has predominantly relied on direct translation (DT) of English benchmarks into target languages - an approach that converts surface-level linguistic form while failing to reflect the cultural context embedded in threat scenarios, social norms, and legal frameworks. We construct paired DT and culturally-adapted (CA) datasets via 1:1 seed matching for four languages - Korean (KO), Japanese (JA), Thai (TH), and Khmer (KM) - and compare Attack Success Rate (ASR) and Cultural Realism scores across four open-source LLM.
arXiv:2608. 13695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model providers routinely cite multilingual safety benchmarks spanning a dozen or more languages as evidence that their models are safe for non-English-speaking users.
arXiv:2606. 09178v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has predominantly relied on direct translation (DT) of English benchmarks into target languages - an approach that converts surface-level linguistic form while failing to reflect the cultural context embedded in threat scenarios, social norms, and legal frameworks.
arXiv:2605. 14152v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for large language models (LLMs) increasingly target high-stakes National Security and Public Safety (NSPS) risks, yet multilingual safety is mostly assessed through translation-only benchmarks that preserve the underlying scenario, leaving how language and geopolitical context interact largely unexamined beyond a few language pairs.
IndicSafeEval is a new evaluation framework that tests the safety robustness of large language models against persuasion-based jailbreak attacks in Indian languages. The benchmark includes 7,200 adversarial prompts covering ten safety-critical content categories, six persuasive strategies, and four languages (Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi). Experiments show that model safety varies significantly across languages, prompt styles, and risk categories, revealing that current English-centric safety evaluations miss important multilingual vulnerabilities.
arXiv:2608. 14626v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved substantial progress in safety alignment, yet their safety guarantees remain significantly weaker in low-resource and multilingual settings than in high-resource languages.
The paper introduces DiagSafe, a diagnostic evaluation framework that replaces binary safe/unsafe labels with prompt-level rubrics grounded in AI safety policies. DiagSafe uses a bilingual benchmark with an 84‑label safety taxonomy, comprising DiagBase and DiagAttack subsets, to assess safety and usefulness independently. Experiments show DiagSafe achieves high agreement with human annotations (95.34%) and strong inter‑judge consistency (Cohen’s κ = 0.864), revealing significant differences in unsafe rates and vulnerabilities across leading LLMs, especially in Chinese and multi‑turn contexts.