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.
By Saikat Mondal, Mamta, Deeksha Varshney, Oana Cocarascu, Asif Ekbal
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.
By Chialuka Prisca-Mary Onuoha, Bright Etornam Sunu, Rashidat Sikiru
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 covers ten safety-critical content categories, six persuasive strategies, and four languages—Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, and Punjabi—producing 7,200 adversarial prompts. Experiments show that model safety varies significantly across languages, prompt styles, and risk categories, highlighting gaps in current English-centric safety assessments.
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.
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.
By Mohsinul Kabir, Md. Tariquzzaman, Karam S. R. Elradie, Polydoros Giannouris, Yuechen Jiang, Shaoxiong Ji, Sophia Ananiadou
arXiv:2605. 17173v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages.
By Max Zhang, Ameen Patel, Sang T. Truong, Sanmi Koyejo
The paper introduces a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the use of misogynistic slurs from their mention in counter‑speech within code‑mixed Hinglish. It identifies evaluation artifacts in existing corpora, releases a 416‑item minimal‑pair contrast set that decorrelates slur presence and gendered register from labels, and proposes a pair‑consistency metric to assess model performance. Experiments show that even strong baselines struggle to consistently label counter‑speech pairs, while a large language model achieves perfect scores, indicating the benchmark measures genuine capability rather than exploitation of artifacts.
By Ashanvi Yadav, Shubham Bhardwaj
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...
By Dasol Choi, Eugenia Kim, Jaewon Noh, Sang Seo, Eunmi Kim, Myunggyo Oh, Yunjin Park, Brigitta Jesica Kartono, Josef Pichlmeier, Helena Berndt, Sai Krishna Mendu, Glenn Johannes Tungka, \"Ozlem G\"ok\c{c}e, Suresh Gehlot, Katherine Pratt, Amanda Minnich, Haon Park
arXiv:2609.13579v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Safety research often focuses on model-generated harms, but users may also direct hostility, coercion, and adversarial pressure at models. Understandin...
By Fanqi Zeng, Sadid A. Hasan, Chaocheng He
arXiv:2610.15795v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Automated moderation systems are deployed at scale, yet they remain opaque to the users and moderators affected by their decisions, and their coverag...
By Muhammad Shahid Iqbal Malik
arXiv:2606. 08451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety-aligned large language models often exhibit sycophancy, which is the tendency to affirm users' opinions regardless of factual accuracy.
By Arya Shah, Himanshu Beniwal, Mayank Singh, Chaklam Silpasuwanchai
The paper investigates whether existing AI safety benchmarks, designed for large language models, are suitable for evaluating small language models (SLMs). By testing five benchmark suites on 26 open‑source SLMs with a unified scoring rubric, the authors find that ambiguous judgments dominate, especially for complex prompts and certain architectures. This ambiguity, linked to factors like lexical density and output perplexity, undermines the reliability of aggregate leaderboards and reveals a confound between model capability and perceived safety.
By Nyamtulla Shaik, Fengjun Li, Bo Luo