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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
PreScience: A Dataset and Benchmark for Scientific Forecasting
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.
-
The State of Multilingual LLM Safety Research: From Measuring the Language Gap to Mitigating It
LLM safety research at ACL venues from 2020 to 2024 is predominantly English-only, and the language gap is growing over time.
-
LLMs Lost in Translation: M-ALERT uncovers Cross-Linguistic Safety Inconsistencies
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.