Quantifying the Salience of Geo-Cultural Values for Pluralistic Safety Alignment
arXiv:2606. 00369v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safe global deployment of AI models requires alignment with human values that vary across cultures.
arXiv:2606. 00369v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safe global deployment of AI models requires alignment with human values that vary across cultures.
arXiv:2609.23071v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This thesis proposes a framework for "responsible intelligence" to address AI's critical challenges in safety, ethics, and cultural sensitivity. It a...
arXiv:2608.28405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current cultural evaluations for large language models (LLMs) often reduce culture to single-turn factual recall via MCQs, failing to capture a common...
arXiv:2605.28013v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exacerbate safety risks by introducing vulnerabilities across multiple modalities, such as language and vi...
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.
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.
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:2608.21985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As the adoption of large language models (LLMs) grows in Arabic-speaking regions, ensuring their safety and cultural alignment is increasingly critical...
arXiv:2603. 22793v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Classroom AI systems increasingly infer high-level educational states such as engagement, confusion, collaboration, participation, and instructional quality from multimodal and linguistic signals.
The paper titled "Safety Alignment Illusion: The Cross-Lingual Safety Gap in LLMs" highlights that current safety alignment training for large language models is predominantly English-centric, leading to failures in non‑English languages. It introduces INCLUDE, a multilingual benchmark with 2,604 prompts in six languages (English, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, and Hinglish) to measure Indian‑centric socio‑cultural biases. Evaluation of ten open‑ and closed‑source LLMs shows that Bengali models exhibit the highest bias scores among open‑source models, while English shows the lowest bias in open‑source but the highest in closed‑source models.
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.
We describe our latest thinking in the hope of helping other AI developers address safety and misuse of deployed models.