Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Benchmarking LLM Guardrails in Handling Multilingual Toxicity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.22153 v1 pith:WKTOUXEX submitted 2024-10-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords guardrailsmultilingualhandlingllmsjailbreakinglanguageperformancescenarios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the ubiquity of Large Language Models (LLMs), guardrails have become crucial to detect and defend against toxic content. However, with the increasing pervasiveness of LLMs in multilingual scenarios, their effectiveness in handling multilingual toxic inputs remains unclear. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive multilingual test suite, spanning seven datasets and over ten languages, to benchmark the performance of state-of-the-art guardrails. We also investigates the resilience of guardrails against recent jailbreaking techniques, and assess the impact of in-context safety policies and language resource availability on guardrails' performance. Our findings show that existing guardrails are still ineffective at handling multilingual toxicity and lack robustness against jailbreaking prompts. This work aims to identify the limitations of guardrails and to build a more reliable and trustworthy LLMs in multilingual scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PreScience: A Dataset and Benchmark for Scientific Forecasting

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark tests whether AI can forecast future scientific papers; frontier LLMs score ~5.6/10 on matching real abstracts, and simulated corpora are measurably less diverse and novel than human science.

  2. The State of Multilingual LLM Safety Research: From Measuring the Language Gap to Mitigating It

    cs.CL 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM safety research at ACL venues from 2020 to 2024 is predominantly English-only, and the language gap is growing over time.

  3. LLMs Lost in Translation: M-ALERT uncovers Cross-Linguistic Safety Inconsistencies

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    M-ALERT, a 75k-prompt multilingual safety benchmark, shows that LLM safety varies substantially across five languages and across risk categories, with no model reaching the 99% safe threshold in every language.

Pith tools