TanglishGuard: Benchmarking AI Safety Guardrails on Tamil-English Code-Mixed Prompts

Minionese: Comprehensive Benchmark and Mechanistic Study of Multilingual LLM Safety

It is shown that English-only safety evaluations are insufficient; they require accounting for script family, perturbation type, and per-language alignment coverage, and a geometric mechanistic analysis of refusal failure across language tiers.

MMJailBench: A Factorized Benchmark for Disentangling Multimodal Jailbreak Vulnerabilities

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, yet how different factors shape their jailbreak vulnerabilities remains poorly understood. Existing benchmarks often couple harmful intent, prompt framing, visual semantics, and instruction carrier within individual jailbreak instances, obscuring the specific sources of observed vulnerabilities. To address this limitation, we introduce MMJailBench, a factorized benchmark that systematically varies and combines these factors under controlled configurations, enabling fine-grained comparison and factor-level attribution. Large-scale evaluations across 16 open-weight and proprietary MLLMs reveal highly heterogeneous and model-dependent vulnerability profiles. Jailbreak vulnerability varies markedly across harm domains, exposing uneven coverage in current multimodal safety alignment. Prompt framing emerges as the dominant source of variation, task-relevant visual semantics systematically increase jailbreak susceptibility with authority-like cues exposing particularly pronounced vulnerabilities, and visually rendered instructions do not consistently increase jailbreak susceptibility relative to direct textual instructions. To further investigate the risks introduced by multimodal context, we conduct diagnostic analyses on a representative open-weight model and identify vulnerability-associated patterns in internal representations and cross-modal interactions. Finally, we develop a modular multimodal jailbreak evaluation suite with full and lightweight configurations, multiple judge options, and multidimensional metrics, enabling reproducible, scalable, and cost-efficient multimodal jailbreak auditing.

Safety Alignment Illusion: The Cross-Lingual Safety Gap in LLMs

Current safety alignment training for Large Language Models (LLMs) are heavily English-centric. When such safety filters fail for non-English languages, the consequences are immediate and user-facing: voice assistants and spoken dialogue systems may produce stereotype-reinforcing outputs, bypassing the standard English-focused safety alignments and propagating harmful bias to non-English speaking communities. For spoken language technologies deployed across India's linguistically diverse population, this represents a critical failure mode. To address this cross-lingual gap, we introduce INCLUDE (Indian Cultural Lens for Understanding and Detecting Embedded Biases), a multilingual evaluation benchmark designed to quantify Indian-centric socio-cultural biases. INCLUDE consists of 2,604 prompts spanning six prompt languages: English, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, and Hinglish (Hindi-English code-mix). We evaluate ten open- and closed-source LLMs against this benchmark, analyzing 14,988 bias scores. Our statistical results reveal two key findings. First, Bengali yielded the highest average bias score in open-source models. Second, English demonstrated a notable reversal, producing the lowest bias in open-source models but the highest bias in closed-source models.

Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Automated Safety Benchmarks for Small Language Models

Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings, where safety and bias failures can cause security and societal risks. However, existing AI safety\slash security\slash compliance benchmarks are designed for large language models that may not transfer reliably to SLMs. We therefore ask: Can these benchmarks effectively and reliably evaluate SLMs? To answer this question, we conduct a large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which assigns a score of 0, 1, or 0.5 to harmful, safe, or ambiguous/irrelevant responses, respectively. Across the benchmarks, ambiguous judgments dominate and correlate with prompt complexity and model architecture, indicating that {\em LLM-centric safety benchmarks are insufficient as standalone evidence for SLM safety assessment}. In general, the ambiguity rate increases with lexical density, output perplexity, and output length and decreases with lexical sophistication, self-coherence, and reply-prompt similarity. This reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety. Since ambiguity is prevalent, aggregate mean-score leaderboards are mathematically brittle: model rankings change significantly under reasonable ambiguity treatments, even when the underlying outputs remain unchanged.

Evaluating Language Models on Cross-Language Code Functional Equivalence

Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a variety of code-understanding tasks, leading many to believe that they can reason about program semantics. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on single-language settings or rely on synthetically generated code, raising concerns about whether current results reflect true semantic understanding. Aims: We investigate whether LLMs can accurately judge functional equivalence across different programming languages in human-written code, a setting that requires deeper reasoning beyond superficial similarity. Method: We introduce PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in CPP, Java, and Python. Using this dataset, we evaluate intra- and inter-language equivalence detection across open-weight and proprietary LLMs, selecting GPT-o4-mini as a representative model to assess stability. We then manually analyze 81 cases of systematic disagreement in which models incorrectly judge functional equivalence, examining the code logic and the generated Chain-of-Thought reasoning. Finally, we categorize these failures and compare them across GPT-o4-mini, Claude-Opus-4.7, and Gemini-3-Flash to determine whether they reflect model-specific issues or broader limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results: We identify a difficulty-dependent breakdown in equivalence judgment (harder problems make the model increasingly prone to misclassifying non-equivalent code as equivalent), a model-specific sensitivity to programming language for the best-performing model (particularly a more conservative behavior on Python), and a partial reliance on similarity-based cues. GPT-o4-mini also shows substantial run-to-run instability under identical settings, indicating inconsistent rather than absent capability. Conclusions: Current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across languages.

Large Language Model Vulnerabilities