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.
By Hyeji Choi, Yongtaek Lim, Minwoo Kim
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.
By Michael S. Lee, Yash Maurya, Drew Rein, Bert Herring, Jonathan Nguyen, Kyungho Song, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Jiyeon Cho, Kaustubh Deshpande, Yeongkyun Jang, Jiyeon Joo, Minn Seok Choi, Evi Fuelle, Christina Q. Knight, Joseph Brandifino, Max Fenkell
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...
By Yongwoo Kim, Sojung An, Yunjin Park, Jungwon Yoon, Dujin Lee, HyunBeom Cho, Jaewon Lee, Wonhyuk Lee, Youngchol Kim, JeongYeop Kim, Donghyun Kim
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
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 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.
By Namya Bhatnagar